Ms, with all respect, I'm going to give you a hypothetical comparison to this. I want you to answer honestly with regards to legality ONLY.
A devout Hindu becomes the head of the FDA. To him, the cow is holy, and he starts failing every business that processes any products that contain dairy and beef. If a slaughter house fails a FDA inspection for cleanliness, they cannot LEGALLY sell ANYTHING as food to ANYONE. McD's BK steak houses and grocery stores will run out of meat and dairy IF enough or large enough suppliers shut down. Many people will start asking questions and getting angry because there is not new stock being supplied. This supervisor is inquired by Congress, the CDC has nothing like mad cow disease cases or foot and mouth disease as LEGAL EVIDENCE for shutting down the processors dairies and slaughtering. This devout Hindu not only tells congress and the CDC that all these places fail because they slaughter and sell parts of holy animals, but cannot be cleansed enough to resume processing ANY OTHER MEATS due to the RELIGIOUS SINS committed in the slaughter of cows.
Is he LEGALLY sound in his reasoning? The facilities cannot process anything without FDA approval.
no, based upon this first sentence
"a devout hindu becomes the head of fda,,,,to him the cow is holy'
he took a job knowing the job and knowing cows were part of it WHEN HE STARTED, by accepting the job he accepted it WITH THAT JOB DESCRIPTION
but more closely to kim would be
'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position'
based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,,
The 14th amendment HAS NOT CHANGED.
Her SWORN LEGAL OATH for LEGAL OFFICE HAS NOT CHANGED.
She IS NOT in a position of RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.
She IS NOT performing RELIGIOUS CEREMONYS, she isn't performing ANY CEREMONYS.
Her OBLIGATION is LEGAL.
Her office is LEGAL.
Her work is LEGAL.
Her title is LEGAL.
Her 'boss' the COURTS, are COURTS OF LAW.
Her RELIGIOUS BELIEF doesn't supersede ANY LAW IN ANY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES.
it sure doesn't, and those Christians who found slavery amoral didn't have beliefs that SUPERCEDED law either, or those who struck out against segregation and jim crow,
but thank God they made the sacrifices and stood up to those laws even to the point of breaking them,,,,,
fighting a system that made certain people feel they had to CLOSET 'who they are' by just pushing some other group there instead is WRONG,, whether its 'legal' or not
Wrong. You know you're wrong.
There is nothing RELIGIOUS about slavery statutes that used to exist.
They were, at the time, LEGAL binding contracts of sale or records of ownership of ANY PROPERTY, to the COUNTIES STATES AND the IRS have didlly squat to do with RELIGION.
Jim crow laws were, at the time, LEGAL. They had no RELIGIOUS authority.
These PEOPLE are LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS PEOPLE. Not as Christians, or good Christians or saint's or ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Legally.
never said religious statutes
I said religious convictions that caused people to feel the statutes were wrong,,,,
all humans are people, not part of the argument
siblings are people but we still exclude them from their 'fundamental' rights on the basis of
)right to personal choice
2)support of two person unions based on its importance to those in the union
3)protection of children,to have stability, though children are neither a mandate or condition of marriage
4) because marriage is CENTRAL to the social order which provides a 'constellation' of 'benefits' in exchange
5)equal protection (to the 'benefits' hetero couples receive)
I doubt he will be the only one,, and its probably inevitable
