Kentucky Clerk Denies Marriage Licenses | Update: Clerk Freed w/Warning!

[niallyb]

padib said:

JWeinCom said:

It absolutely does not.  The reasoning behind the right to property is fairly well explained by many moral philosophers, most notably in the western world John Locke.

I don't know if you actually want to go through the pointlessly assinine exercise of debating whether or not stealing is wrong, but it is objectively healthier for a society to protect property rights.  We can come to this conclusion through basic human empathy (I don't like my things being taken from me, you are a human being like me, therefore I should not take your things), and we can easily see how stealing removes incentives for hard work, and leads to violence, etc.  It is pretty easy to see, even in a simple microcosm like a Kindergarten classroom, how stealing leads to conflict and disruption.  We have good reason to believe the consequences of stealing are detrimental to society.

I'm really hoping you're not going to actually argue that we should allow stealing...

Human empathy is important, but why is it important?

What is wrong with Chaos, from a really practical point of view? Ultimately what does it matter? One person gains this another gains that we all die in the end.

If you look at it from a moral point of view though, it starts to make much sense.  How will a person feel if I do X, how does my conscience react if I do X?

That is much more important than detrimental or not detrimental, which is all relative to each person's opinion.

You keep forgetting that SHE is not the office of the county clerk.  Its the duty of the office to issue the marriage certificates. Her prejudice actually impeded the functioning of local government and she intimidated the deputy clerks over the issue too.  Five of the six clerks were only too happy to start issuing the certs.  The sixth deputy clerk - is her son !

 

There is nothing surprising in any of the court rulings with respect to this.  Its entirely consistent with the last 50 years of case law on civil rights vs "religious" interference.  All your arguments were used in the 60's over interracial marriage.  Your arguments failed then. They are clearly failing now.