I just learned something: You can't grant a county clerk a religious exception for deny service

frenchdefense · Jul 2, 2015

Tallguy88 said:
The clerk can turn around and sue the State and the AG for legal malpractice.

Actually, they can't. The law makes the clerk personally responsible. As a goverment functionary they have the responsibility to enforce the law.

frenchdefense · Jul 2, 2015

Cute Tink said:
A government official sued under Section 1983 will probably have their agency sued as well under the concept of "failure to train" or something similar and will usually still get representation from the appropriate civil division of their legal department as long as they were acting within the course and scope of their employment and not engaged in blatant misconduct.

Not in this case. Seriously read the law the clerk is, in fact personally responsible every clerk who has be sued under 1983 has been abandon by the state because the state has no responsibility to them.

Tallguy88 · Jul 2, 2015

frenchdefense said:
Actually, they can't. The law makes the clerk personally responsible. As a goverment functionary they have the responsibility to enforce the law.

They can sue the AG personally for giving them false legal advice. Thats what legal malpractice is. I didn't say the clerks were not legally liable to the gays wanting to get married. It would be two separate cases.

Catherineanne · Jul 2, 2015

Tallguy88 said:
I also work for the state. I have to deal with the public everyday.

Whenever anyone tries to pull that "I pay your salary" crap with me, I remind them that they are on welfare and I am not. Therefore, they don't pay taxes, and thus, don't pay my salary. I, in fact, help pay theirs.

I am disabled and cannot work. I can assure you I still pay tax; lots of it. Meanwhile, in the UK at least, public servants are there to serve the public without discriminating, and preferably without such comments.

There are few people around who do not pay tax of any kind. Perhaps none.

Catherineanne · Jul 2, 2015

Tallguy88 said:
If I worked in the County Clerk's office (a county job, not a state job in my state) and a same sex couple wanted a marriage license, I would simple be "unavailable" at that moment and refer them to my college who can help them. I've got all these files to copy and these checks to mail out...

What nonsense.

frenchdefense · Jul 2, 2015

Tallguy88 said:
They can sue the AG personally for giving them false legal advice. Thats what legal malpractice is. I didn't say the clerks were not legally liable to the gays wanting to get married. It would be two separate cases.

Look TG, if you want to believe this, fine,

But this is playing out right now and none of this is happening. The clerks are either quitting or folding because they have no other recourse.

They are in fact minor goverment functionaries (no slight intended, it's just a accurate description of their, very necessary, job)
of the executive branch and have the responsibility of working the mechanisms of goverment, they either will do their jobs or the court will find someone who will.

Tallguy88 · Jul 2, 2015

Hetta · Jul 2, 2015

Tallguy, just out of curiosity, is it your perspective that "ignorance is bliss?"

Cute Tink · Jul 2, 2015

frenchdefense said:
Not in this case. Seriously read the law the clerk is, in fact personally responsible every clerk who has be sued under 1983 has been abandon by the state because the state has no responsibility to them.

I have some experience with these cases where police officers are personally sued under Section 1983. They are still able to elect to have the city legal team represent them.

Tallguy88 · Jul 2, 2015

Catherineanne said:
What nonsense.

Ok. Why is it nonsemse? Until a week ago, it was illegal to grant a marriage license to two people of the same sex seeking a marriage license in my state. If I was hired on under those rules, then I can't be said to be committing fraud or somesuch by not wanting to follow the unconstitutional ruling of the SCOTUS that overturned the will of the people in my state. If I were hired AFTER the ruling, then you are right, I would have no excuse becsuse i would be going into the job knowing it was a requirement.

Hetta · Jul 2, 2015

I'm curious about the "ignorance is bliss" angle because what I have often seen repeated is that "nobody knows that a person getting married is ... a rapist/a murderer/a bigamist/a serial killer/a wife/husband beater/a child abuser/a person on their ten millionth marriage" because there's no way to tell, whereas when two women walk in and say they're getting married, there's no hiding it. So, if a woman comes in, says this is her friend who is tasting wedding cakes with her, and one of them then orders a cake but asks for no topper, then after she has the cake - et voila - it turns out to be for a lesbian wedding and the women had a "lesbian" cake topper all along ... what then? Did the baker just "not sin" and therefore has a clean conscience? Or is she (or he) still riddled with sin? Because, regardless, the baker still made a cake and it was still used at a gay wedding.

Cute Tink · Jul 2, 2015

Tallguy88 said:
No. I'm not even sure I would know if they were divorced or not.

Fortunately, it isn't something I have to deal with.

My recollection was that the clerk asked me if I had ever been married before and how those marriages were concluded.

Tallguy88 · Jul 2, 2015

Hetta said:
Tallguy, just out of curiosity, is it your perspective that "ignorance is bliss?"

Unable to extrapolate. Clarification needed.

Hetta · Jul 2, 2015

Cute Tink said:
My recollection was that the clerk asked me if I had ever been married before and how those marriages were concluded.

Ah, interesting to know. Thank you for that information. So the clerk will know that these are sinners according to certain Biblical interpretations. And adulterers actually according to some sections of the Christian populace. So, clerks are condoning adultery?

Hetta · Jul 2, 2015

Tallguy88 said:
Unable to extrapolate. Clarification needed.

I clarified in post #31.

Tallguy88 · Jul 2, 2015

Hetta said:
I'm curious about the "ignorance is bliss" angle because what I have often seen repeated is that "nobody knows that a person getting married is ... a rapist/a murderer/a bigamist/a serial killer/a wife/husband beater/a child abuser/a person on their ten millionth marriage" because there's no way to tell, whereas when two women walk in and say they're getting married, there's no hiding it. So, if a woman comes in, says this is her friend who is tasting wedding cakes with her, and one of them then orders a cake but asks for no topper, then after she has the cake - et voila - it turns out to be for a lesbian wedding and the women had a "lesbian" cake topper all along ... what then? Did the baker just "not sin" and therefore has a clean conscience? Or is she (or he) still riddled with sin? Because, regardless, the baker still made a cake and it was still used at a gay wedding.

Intent and knowledge are two of the three necessary components of whether something is a mortal sin or not. So, in those cases, ingnorance would indeed shield him from committing a sin, if it would be a sin. I'm not saying that it is.

Hetta · Jul 2, 2015

Tallguy88 said:
Intent and knowledge are two of the three necessary components of whether something is a mortal sin or not. So, in those cases, ingnorance would indeed shield him from committing a sin, if it would be a sin. I'm not saying that it is.

Oh. I'm out of my depth on 'mortal' sins.

Tallguy88 · Jul 2, 2015

Hetta said:
Ah, interesting to know. Thank you for that information. So the clerk will know that these are sinners according to certain Biblical interpretations. And adulterers actually according to some sections of the Christian populace. So, clerks are condoning adultery?

Those rules would vary state to state. Having never been married, I cannot say how it is handled in my state.

frenchdefense · Jul 2, 2015

Tallguy88 said:
Ok. Why is it nonsemse? Until a week ago, it was illegal to grant a marriage license to two people of the same sex seeking a marriage license in my state. If I was hired on under those rules, then I can't be said to be committing fraud or somesuch by not wanting to follow the unconstitutional ruling of the SCOTUS that overturned the will of the people in my state. If I were hired AFTER the ruling, then you are right, I would have no excuse becsuse i would be going into the job knowing it was a requirement.

TG this is ridiculous. As a government employee you don't get to enforce only the laws you like.

It would be chaos and the court system isn't going to stand for it. Just because the law changes doesn't mean YOU get to decide which are good and which are bad.

Tallguy88 · Jul 2, 2015

Hetta said:
Oh. I'm out of my depth on 'mortal' sins.

It could still be a venial sin. It all depends on whether the thing in question is a grave matter (the other requirement for a mortal sin).

I just learned something: You can't grant a county clerk a religious exception for deny service

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

We shall see the King when he comes!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

We shall see the King when he comes!

I'll find my way home

Blah

We shall see the King when he comes!

I'll find my way home

Blah

We shall see the King when he comes!

I'll find my way home

I'll find my way home

We shall see the King when he comes!

I'll find my way home

We shall see the King when he comes!

Well-Known Member

We shall see the King when he comes!

Similar threads