In case anyone was wondering why they ruled that way, this is their logic: I realize that this can lead to some complicated cases but I think that if you are morally against something that is at...
In case anyone was wondering why they ruled that way, this is their logic:
“The First Amendment shields Davis where she ‘functioned as a private citizen,’ but not where she “engaged in state action,’” the opinion states.
I realize that this can lead to some complicated cases but I think that if you are morally against something that is at the core of your job, maybe you should get a different job.
More importantly, it allows for a complete bypass of the laws. There is no difference between "gay marriage is illegal" and "gay marriage is legal but we only hired people that don't want that to...
More importantly, it allows for a complete bypass of the laws.
There is no difference between "gay marriage is illegal" and "gay marriage is legal but we only hired people that don't want that to be the case" if this gets an unfortunate ruling.
To add onto this: this is already an accepted paradigm for government employees in other positions. For example, as a public school teacher, I have restrictions applied to my own first amendment...
To add onto this: this is already an accepted paradigm for government employees in other positions.
To be honest this sounds extremely common sense. Civil servants are not supposed to bring their opinions into their work - they're professionals. You wouldn't want some Randian getting into the...
To be honest this sounds extremely common sense. Civil servants are not supposed to bring their opinions into their work - they're professionals. You wouldn't want some Randian getting into the Social Security office and refuse to approve anything, or get into the IRS to sabotage it.
Oh my god, they are still trying to litigate this? Frankly I am amazed that any judge will actually hear these arguments and not simply throw out the case. Here’s to many more years of Mat Staver...
Oh my god, they are still trying to litigate this?
Frankly I am amazed that any judge will actually hear these arguments and not simply throw out the case.
Here’s to many more years of Mat Staver losing in court. These people are evil through and through. The only positives about it is that they are wasting the money of people who would donate to their hateful cause.
In case anyone was wondering why they ruled that way, this is their logic:
I realize that this can lead to some complicated cases but I think that if you are morally against something that is at the core of your job, maybe you should get a different job.
More importantly, it allows for a complete bypass of the laws.
There is no difference between "gay marriage is illegal" and "gay marriage is legal but we only hired people that don't want that to be the case" if this gets an unfortunate ruling.
Extend it to national actions and you've got anarchy
To add onto this: this is already an accepted paradigm for government employees in other positions.
For example, as a public school teacher, I have restrictions applied to my own first amendment rights.
To be honest this sounds extremely common sense. Civil servants are not supposed to bring their opinions into their work - they're professionals. You wouldn't want some Randian getting into the Social Security office and refuse to approve anything, or get into the IRS to sabotage it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIYfiRyPi3o&t=4m39s
Oh my god, they are still trying to litigate this?
Frankly I am amazed that any judge will actually hear these arguments and not simply throw out the case.
Here’s to many more years of Mat Staver losing in court. These people are evil through and through. The only positives about it is that they are wasting the money of people who would donate to their hateful cause.