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][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]

That is not grounds for recusal.  Not remotely. [/quote]

Their active endorsement by officiating makes it clear how they would vote:

[i]Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’[/i]
[/quote]

Scalia made it perfectly clear how he would vote in that case in his various screeds in other opinions on how bad gay marriage would be and how the court was paving the way for it with whatever decision. So, based on your logic, I assume you feel he should have recused himself as well? After all, he made it clear how he would vote before [i]Obergefell [/i]was before them.[/quote]

I Scalia had been asked to officiate a gay marriage and refused, I would agree. Action makes the difference. [/quote]

Yes, and writing prior opinions expressing disapproval of gay marriage as a legal proposition is action. He took action that made his views on the matter clear. If anything, I'd say that stating your views in a publicly-released opinion that forms part of our jurisprudence is even worse than participating in a private marriage ceremony in terms of whether one's impartiality should be questioned.[/quote]

Scalia was talking about gay marriage from a legal perspective, specifically constitutional. That's fine.

Officiating a gay wedding is sanctifying the marriage from an emotional perspective. [/quote]

You realize how silly you sound, I hope.  "From an emotional perspective".  Ah yes, we learned about that in law school.  If you read Scalia's writing it's very clear he's VERY emotional a[b]bout his homophobia[/b]. [/quote]

And the agenda is out there. Thank you. I'll let you out of the web now.[/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