…thing is though…Kim Davis has the freedom to marry and us marry as many times as she wants under the law/I don’t know what her religion follows…but she wants to remove that law right from others to all have those same rights…which doesn’t follow any type of democracy…while citing her own freedoms, she’s advocating to stifle those of others…anyway, returning the same negativity and intolerance that is being displayed isn’t great either so…I wish that I was confident that this will all be dismissed but I’m not quite so much…

Do people really care about Celebrity crushes though?:laugh:

Like if I ever get a girlfriend and she were to dislike the fact that I find people like Ella Langley or Maya Jama to be goodlooking women, then that would be daft for quite a few different reasons.:joker:

The main reason being that they wouldn't even know who I am.

…actually it wasn’t so much celebrity crushes that I was thinking of…:laugh:…

Oh.:laugh:

Admittedly that might be a bit different lol, I would keep that a secret if I found another woman physically attractive that I also happen to know.:joker:

Roe v Wade was never Constitutional. It's been a controversial ruling that has been widely discussed as such both in public discourse and in the educational system even though it has good intentions, it was so flawed by design that there was always speculation it would be overturned in the future. And so it was. That ruling wouldn't have been surprising to people who paid any attention during civics.

My understanding is they're trying to overturn a prior court ruling from SCOTUS on gay marriage, which is based upon marriage being a right. Except, marriage isn't defined as an inherent right anywhere in the Constitution.

From what I'm understanding they're mainly testing the ruling under the logic that she was discriminated based upon her religious practice which caused loss of employment (among other things). Religious discrimination is a big deal here seeing as many migrated here to avoid religious persecution. It's in large part why the Constitution is written out the way it is and designed so that States hold separate sovereign powers from the Federal Govt. That's why when Roe was overturned, abortion wasn't outright banned, it just went back to the States.

I suspect the people backing & funding her case are probably hoping it'll knock down the entire ruling because it sounds like the argument is that her rights were violated because of the original ruling overstepped. I've heard very mixed reactions as to whether it'll be successful.

Marriage Laws: Where In The Constitution?
https://lawshun.com/article/where-in...-marriage-laws

The 14th Amendment is where the basis is made for same-sex marriage, which was written in 1868. They're making the argument that the ruling is not good because it violates the 10th. The language in the 14th is very broad, so not surprising they could rule within its logic, but it does not mention marriage...

10th:

That's the problem with rulings that reference language in the Constitution that doesn't exist. If it's inserting things that aren't there, it's likely it'll be overturned at some point. An Amendment would need to be passed instead of relying on psychic "interpretations".

Wiki:
So Obergefell v Hodges had overturned a ruling prior that determined that restricting same-sex didn't offend the Constitution lol. Wonderful. 5-4 is actually a pretty weak ruling.

That said, there's some precedence where the 14th Amendment has been used in this way, so imo there's a higher likelihood it holds:

I think it's incorrect to cause someone to violate their own conscience, i.e. forcing someone to tender a license that would violate important religious observations. (Whatever we may think of it). The same as forcing a nurse to put herself on the chopping block because she refuses to help perform an abortion. (Emergency life saving surgery is different)

I haven't seen the legal system really tackle that conflict well. It seems like it's very easy to lose rights as a religious person if they stumble onto the wrong side of the courts.. I understand in the UK it might be different, but in the US, religious observations (within reason) are fundamentally protected. I don't see the UK reversing course the same way because the reasons we're largely reversing laws aren't some kind of cultural trick. These are all rulings that have technical issues and so are easily reinterpreted.

For example, too many courts have just simply outright ignored the 10th Amendment to try to put in language at the highest level that only holds subjectively and don't seem capable of understanding that by having more of the weight at the State level, it guarantees an equilibrium between the States and the Federal Govt (and thus the political temperatures) because they have the sovereign duty to hold themselves accountable and also be held accountable by the People. All of which is very important for how the system was designed to function under the Constitution.

I understand that in the setting of someones own business, but (and correct me if I'm am wrong) Kim Davis was employed by the Government, which is to say she is there to work for the public. Her own religious beliefs should not come into the delivery of her work in a way that impacts those she is there to 'serve'. That is discrimination.

If an NHS nurse refused to perform an abortion because of her religious beliefs, I would question why she became a nurse and would question why she should be employed if it's going to effect the outcome of her patient.

Religious views and observations are generally broadly protected where there is reasonable expectation of accommodation, but laws haven't caught up for areas where there is a major conflict in rights. That's maybe what this case will help clarify for States making their own rulings, but that's if SCOTUS even takes it.

I don't think the couples requesting a license are at fault or the woman refusing on religious grounds. The agency is at fault for not providing an accommodation. No one is requesting the agency to not issue a certificate at all. Obviously such a nurse wouldn't apply to work at an abortion clinic, but it would be easy to accommodate them in a general hospital setting here.

It’s swings a round abouts
Some dirty bastards love watching their wife have sex with other men then you have swinging

I’m censored on what o can regarding the bad sid of gay men on here but they can be just as bad if not worse

I should also add accommodation is meant to work both ways. A person wouldn't decline to work Sundays (though that happens and can be honored) where some churches accommodate by being available at more days and times.

It has to be for perfectly legitimate reasons that makes sense why it is putting that person in a major conflict of conscience.

However, if an employer can't accommodate for perfectly legitimate reasons also, they can turn down employment altogether (generally). If a person needs to be on hand on Sundays and are in a management position, they're not going find an extra manager for one day. So they may have to change days and accommodate the employer.

In law enforcement, it wasn't possible to allow religious headwear for presentation\public-facing and safety reasons. Those rules were loosened by some agencies, but that restriction still wasn't considered a violation of personal freedoms where it simply wasn't practical.

Edit: Most of these things are worked out at hiring time here.