But religious accommodation is a thing, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Does that mean that any justices who have ever expressed an opinion against same sex marriage also should have recused themselves?

By officiating the marriage, you are doing more than expressing an opinion. You are sanctifying it.

Not so much. A priest sanctifies a marriage because marriage is a sacrament for Catholics. (The state allows the priest to also sign the marriage certificate because it is more efficient to only have one ceremony. In some places, you have to get married twice -- once legally and once in church, because a priest or pastor can't sign.) A judge celebrates a marriage or solemnizes a marriage because it is a civil act/legal act when a judge does it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Does that mean that any justices who have ever expressed an opinion against same sex marriage also should have recused themselves?

By officiating the marriage, you are doing more than expressing an opinion. You are sanctifying it.

Not so much. A priest sanctifies a marriage because marriage is a sacrament for Catholics. (The state allows the priest to also sign the marriage certificate because it is more efficient to only have one ceremony. In some places, you have to get married twice -- once legally and once in church, because a priest or pastor can't sign.) A judge celebrates a marriage or solemnizes a marriage because it is a civil act/legal act when a judge does it.

And clearly has a choice. So making the choice to perform it and sign for it, supports it.

[Anonymous]

You obviously do not know what recuse or sanctify mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You obviously do not know what recuse or sanctify mean.

I do know what hopelessly biased means though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You obviously do not know what recuse or sanctify mean.

I do know what hopelessly biased means though.

I don't think you do, though you are a shining example of it.

[Anonymous]

The clerk's function is a purely secular and civil one, not a religious one.

There should be no religion involved. That is not a biased statement, it is a statement of fact.

If she wants to "sanctify" marriages, then she should consider a career change and become a minister, rather than trying to turn a government office into a church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Does that mean that any justices who have ever expressed an opinion against same sex marriage also should have recused themselves?

By officiating the marriage, you are doing more than expressing an opinion. You are sanctifying it.

Not so much. A priest sanctifies a marriage because marriage is a sacrament for Catholics. (The state allows the priest to also sign the marriage certificate because it is more efficient to only have one ceremony. In some places, you have to get married twice -- once legally and once in church, because a priest or pastor can't sign.) A judge celebrates a marriage or solemnizes a marriage because it is a civil act/legal act when a judge does it.

And clearly has a choice. So making the choice to perform it and sign for it, supports it.

Endlessly repeating your opinion doesn't transform it into a fact. It's not like Beetlejuice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Even assuming that is true, which I do not concede, it in on way would require them to recuse from the case. You don't seem to understand conflicts of interests and when recusal is required at all. Judges are not bobblehead blank slates who have no opinion one way or the other on every issue they confront. They may have opinions as long as they don't have conflicts of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Even assuming that is true, which I do not concede, it in on way would require them to recuse from the case. You don't seem to understand conflicts of interests and when recusal is required at all. Judges are not bobblehead blank slates who have no opinion one way or the other on every issue they confront. They may have opinions as long as they don't have conflicts of interest.

typo correction: "... it in no way would require..." (not "on way").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You obviously do not know what recuse or sanctify mean.

I do know what hopelessly biased means though.

"Hopelessly biased" is actual a pretty good description of Ms. Davis's position. Well done.

[Anonymous]

Every day Catholic judges and clerks around the country process divorces, despite the fact that they are forbidden by church law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Does that mean that any justices who have ever expressed an opinion against same sex marriage also should have recused themselves?

By officiating the marriage, you are doing more than expressing an opinion. You are sanctifying it.

Not so much. A priest sanctifies a marriage because marriage is a sacrament for Catholics. (The state allows the priest to also sign the marriage certificate because it is more efficient to only have one ceremony. In some places, you have to get married twice -- once legally and once in church, because a priest or pastor can't sign.) A judge celebrates a marriage or solemnizes a marriage because it is a civil act/legal act when a judge does it.

And clearly has a choice. So making the choice to perform it and sign for it, supports it.

Endlessly repeating your opinion doesn't transform it into a fact. It's not like Beetlejuice.

In liberal worlds, it works for gender. Why not this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Does that mean that any justices who have ever expressed an opinion against same sex marriage also should have recused themselves?

By officiating the marriage, you are doing more than expressing an opinion. You are sanctifying it.

Not so much. A priest sanctifies a marriage because marriage is a sacrament for Catholics. (The state allows the priest to also sign the marriage certificate because it is more efficient to only have one ceremony. In some places, you have to get married twice -- once legally and once in church, because a priest or pastor can't sign.) A judge celebrates a marriage or solemnizes a marriage because it is a civil act/legal act when a judge does it.

And clearly has a choice. So making the choice to perform it and sign for it, supports it.

Endlessly repeating your opinion doesn't transform it into a fact. It's not like Beetlejuice.

In liberal worlds, it works for gender. Why not this?

If you had an even rudimentary knowledge of Constitutional law, you would understand why that comparison is absurd and a weak attempt to evade a serious issue that has been decided correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?

You realize this dispute is over issuing a license, which is a legal prerequisite to entering into a valid marriage, and has nothing whatsoever to do with a contract, right?

You realize two of the SC justices had performed same sex marriages in the past and should have recused themselves, right?

What specific basis for recusal? What you cite does not require it in and of itself.

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support

Does that mean that any justices who have ever expressed an opinion against same sex marriage also should have recused themselves?

By officiating the marriage, you are doing more than expressing an opinion. You are sanctifying it.

Not so much. A priest sanctifies a marriage because marriage is a sacrament for Catholics. (The state allows the priest to also sign the marriage certificate because it is more efficient to only have one ceremony. In some places, you have to get married twice -- once legally and once in church, because a priest or pastor can't sign.) A judge celebrates a marriage or solemnizes a marriage because it is a civil act/legal act when a judge does it.

And clearly has a choice. So making the choice to perform it and sign for it, supports it.

Endlessly repeating your opinion doesn't transform it into a fact. It's not like Beetlejuice.

In liberal worlds, it works for gender. Why not this?

Churches have the legal right to choose who they accept as members. Court clerks do not get to choose because residency is not up to their discretion.

[Anonymous]

Social media is a cruel bitch.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/freekimdavis-hijacked-twitter