Reply to But religious accommodation is a thing, right?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "But religious accommodation is a thing, right?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You realize she simply doesn't want to sign it, but will file the contract, right?  [/quote]

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?[/quote]

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

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

If you perform same sex marriages, you are clearly in support[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics