« FFFT3 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Regarding the clerk in kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, 

By: DGpeddler in FFFT3 | Recommend this post (1)
Thu, 03 Sep 15 12:12 AM | 84 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Food For Further Thought 3
Msg. 15212 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 15209 by oldCADuser)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #


So if you daughter worked in a store
then I should be able to go in and
offer her $50 for sex and have her
arrested if she denies me.


- - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Regarding the clerk in kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples,
By: oldCADuser
in FFFT3
Thu, 03 Sep 15 12:03 AM
Msg. 15209 of 65535

Besides, the roads that his supplies are shipped to him over as well as his finished goods delivered, the police department which assures that his business is safe and secure, the fire department that protects his property, the court system that's available to him when he wants a contract enforced, etc, all of these are paid for by the taxpayers of his community, state and country. He's only able to even be in business as a result of the 'commons' provided for by taxpayers, some of whom are the very individuals that he thinks HIS religion allows him to discriminate against.

Despite the 1st Amendment, there are limits on what someone's religious rights allows them to do. Look at what happened to that cult leader out in Utah a few years ago who was basically enslaving young girls or a year or two ago in Michigan where they tried to pass a law that would allow bullying in school if the parents of the bully demonstrated that their religious beliefs made it OK for their child to intimidate and/or physically abuse classmates who were LGBT.

And keep in mind that back when the 'Loving v Virginia' case was being argued before the Supreme Court in 1967, the state of Virginia used the Religious Freedom argument as part of their defense of the state's anti-miscegenation statute, banning interracial marriage. This law, similar to the ones in 15 other states at the time, not only refused to recognize interracial marriages as being legal, they actually would then prosecute and imprison couples under a state law that also made cohabitation illegal, another statute based strictly on religious grounds.


« FFFT3 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next