[b][i]Miley Osiris has abandoned Thread[/i][/b] She left a note saying: Stop replying. [b]Religion is the last word in the first poll option[/b] Simple question, I chose not to use the Kentucky Clerk specifically because she's a hypocrite who picks and chooses which Bible principles she follows by being married four times. So please, keep her ignorance out of the discussion. Here's the question: If I'm a Christian Marriage licenser, am I obligated by Law to give homosexuals marriage licenses? (This isn't Taylored to me, I'm just putting me in as an example and trying to keep this as unbiased as possible) Things to consider: Freedom of Religion states that I can freely practice my religion. It would be against my Christian belief to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals because the Bible clearly condemns Homosexuals. If I issue marriage licenses to them, I'd have to answer to God for it (based on my beliefs). If I quit, then I cannot support myself for the time that I'm gone. It can also be said that forcing me to believe what you believe by forcing me to accept your way of thinking is just as bigoted as refusing service. Does Freedom of Religion, issued via the constitution by our Founding Fathers, overrule Gay discrimination if it's on the basis of upholding my religious beliefs? On the other hand, The Supreme Court issued that Gays be allowed to marry. This act can only be summarized with one word: Unlawful. It is in direct disobedience to the Law, thus I should face its repercussions if I do not follow it. In separating Church and State, which our Founding Fathers agreed upon, religion should have no adherence to the Government. So in affect, I beg the question, is saying "It's against my religion." A suitable excuse to directly disobey the Law? Does the Supreme Court ruling overrule my right to Freedom of Religion even though my actions are in direct violation of the Law? You choose. Edit: Those who chose Freedom of Religion, speak up! Defend your viewpoint like the others are! Edit2: Giving a point to each side. Yes: She is a state employee and an American citizen, she must follow the Law or suffer consequences. No: It can be said that it is [b]unlawful[/b] for someone to refuse marriage licenses, but it's [b]unconstitutional[/b] to punish someone for following their religion. Edit3: For some odd reason, I've returned to find that the Poll and comments don't really coincide. The Poll says she shouldn't be forced to issue the marriage licenses due to her religion, but the comments all argue against. So for the sake of discussion, I give some points. This case is unique. An argument stating that "Well by that logic, Religions can discriminate and get away with it." Anything along those lines is void because that's not what this case is about. It's taking it out of context. Going back to the Clerk, here's the issue: She's a Christian. In the Christian religion, Marriage is an institution of God based on her religion. God clearly and Directly says that he isn't too fond of Gays. So she's saying it would be against her Religious conscience to issue those licenses. The reason this has some merit is the first part. If she had simply said, "My Religion doesn't condone gays, I can't give you these licenses." Then that's simple discrimination that has no basis, or a very little one. But since Marriage is believed to be by God in her Religion, then she has a basis to say, "It would be against my religious conscience to give these Marriage licenses to them." The keyword here is basis. It's the difference between being Hateful (denying them marriage licenses simply because their sexual orientation) and basis (denying them marriage licenses because it's against your religion). In order to avoid the Discrimination clause and fall into the umbrella of Freedom of Religion, you have to justify that it would be against your religious conscience to do the thing in question. If you do that, then you fall underneath your basic Right. Is it fair to punish someone for following their Religion? Is it fair to force someone out of a job because they are following their Religion? Is it even Constitutional? If you are a state employee, are all your rights stripped? If not then the argument that she's a state employee is void. If so, then State legislature overrules the Constitution and I argue why even have a Constitution. [spoiler]The making your own religion argument is unrealistic as well. Because you'd have to get it recognized as an official Religion and enough people to meet the ramifications of a religion, which if you successfully pulled off you'd probably be dead by the time it's recognized. Good Luck![/spoiler] Edit 3: It isn't against the Rasta religion to not smoke weed. It's optional, so they wouldn't have a basis to smoke weed in federal court. [i][u]Click here for the completely Bias view of Miley Osiris![/u][/i] [spoiler] First off, I don't like the Clerk. She's a hypocrite and the kind of person who gives Christians a bad name. Secondly, I don't think they have a [i]clear[/i] basis to throw her in jail for not serving homosexuals since it is against her religion. I believe it simply comes down to personal preference, because by Law, her right to practice her religion is protected by the Constitution, if a Supreme Court ruling can overturn this then we should change the constitution to fit it, which we haven't so I'm inclined to believe it applies. You see how complicated it gets? So it goes back to personal preference and to avoid scrutiny, one in that position with such publicity behind it, one would be forced to rule for the gays. Another thing I find hypocritical is that people generally don't like Christians forcing their morals upon people. This is totally understandable. But are you not forcing this clerk to accept your moral beliefs? Something's to think about. In Separation of Church and State, the State shouldn't make Laws based on specific moral guidelines. They should only make Laws that benefit the State economically or to protect the citizens in it from having their rights infringed on, including morals on it gets messy like this. What I do agree with most of you is that she's not doing her job. But you can't be thrown in jail for not doing your job. If you throw her in jail for violating the new law, then you've thrown her right to freedom of religion out the window. By fairness, the most the Judge should do is demand she be terminated from her Job. If it was me, again my opinion, I'd leave it up to her employer wether he wants someone who will only do half of her job because of religious beliefs. Because I don't have a clear basis to throw her in jail because all she did was not do her job. So she should be fired but not thrown in jail. But of course if she isn't thrown in jail, the backlash would be that of legend. [/spoiler] Edit4: A summary of my bias view [spoiler]You cannot definitively throw her in jail for what she did. You can't throw people in jail for not doing their job. You can fire them, but not throw them in jail because her rights are protected by the constitution in the sense of Freedom of Religion. But you can fire her, so fire her, don't throw her in jail because most she did was not do her job.[/spoiler]