| padib said: Too many replies guys, I can't keep up. My basic opinion on this is that the liberties of one are the loss of rights of another. I think this is pretty basic. She is one of a good portion of americans who believe that homosexuality is a sin, because many americans, especially in the belt, believe in what the bible teaches. Her belief that it is wrong and should not be promoted is something she wants to see in her society. Unfortunately for her, the rights of homosexuals rule out her right to live in a society that considers homosexuality wrong. The best way to put it is that the rights of one are the losses of rights of another. Plain and simple. |
Thats a gross over simplification. The concept of sin has no place in law. Secondly - what do you mean by "her society" ? She doesn't get to arbitrarily create the rules of society. The office of county clerk is an appendage of local government. Its not her personal fiefdom. Remember she wouldn't let any of the deputy clerks issue licenses either.
She is entitled to her belief - how ever arbitrary and wrong headed it may be. At no stage has that been compromised. But religious freedom simply doesn't give you legal cover to deny the basic civil rights of others and impose your personal religious viewpoints on others. This is a repeat of what happened in the 60's when the federal laws banning interracial marriage were struck down. None of her actual rights have been compromised. with respect to the practice of her religion.
niallyb
