Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Texas county defend right to hire ONLY Baptists. [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)21. Here is the First Amendment phrase that requires Kim to marry LGBTs.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
The 14th Amendment guarantees that these rights also limit the states and employees of the states and requires public employees like Kim to respect those rights in dealing with the public.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that, regardless of the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers or of people today, our legal system and our laws are not to establish or represent or be limited by or based on the beliefs of religion in general or of any specific religion.
Government employees are, in their work, to follow the laws of our nation and local governments. They have to leave specific beliefs not a part of our laws at home if they want to work for the government.
Kim is attempting to establish her religion when she refuses to follow the law of our country and refuses marriage licenses to LGBT people based on her personal religious beliefs.
She may not perform her government job according to her personal religious beliefs if those beliefs conflict with the law. And her denial of licenses to LGBT couples conflicts with the law.
I hope this is a simple, clear explanation for people who do not understand what separation of church and state means.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
They got rid of the physical list; but, what about the attitude behind the list? n/t
1StrongBlackMan
Sep 2015
#12
It has been my experience that a good lawsuit will have "smoking gun" protocols/manuals ...
1StrongBlackMan
Sep 2015
#36
Yep, we were told to pull it all out of the manager's guidelines books. Maybe there was some type
RKP5637
Sep 2015
#42
I'm definitly sure that stayed behind with some. HR became very concerned about equality, so
RKP5637
Sep 2015
#38
I used to love the questions about what birth control method I used (if married of course),
classof56
Sep 2015
#14
Yep, I bet many today do not realize what it was like back then. It was horrible, and some
RKP5637
Sep 2015
#41
These yahoos wouldn't be stoning people -- they'd just shoot them with guns.
Arugula Latte
Sep 2015
#20
I was married into a SoBap family (why, I was very confused) they were the craziest people ever.
Dont call me Shirley
Sep 2015
#18
Thanks, Towelie. I'm glad he still has his job. This "hiring requirement" can't be legal.
Dont call me Shirley
Sep 2015
#59
The county commissioners are persecuting all Christians who are not Baptists. Hey, wait,
NCjack
Sep 2015
#15
I was told "everyone here loves the Lord" in an interview several years back in Texas.
hamsterjill
Sep 2015
#34
I read something years ago about a study, I think it was done by Harvard, and the basic
smirkymonkey
Sep 2015
#45