According to Starnes (2015), “Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa were ordered by the state of Oregon to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.” I believe diversity was handled poorly by the lesbian couple, the Christian bakers and the State of Oregon. Yes, they all were in the wrong. There really isn’t “emotional anguish” if a person doesn’t want to participate in your ceremony. Move on, patronize another business that will happily oblige. In my opinion, this was a move to pick on Christians for what they believe; but shame on the Christians for not being “business savvy.” If you know the market is moving toward “hostility” regarding your beliefs, …show more content…
What business ok with performing those services wouldn’t at no cost to them, enter a contractual agreement that prevented you from performing those services? You have eliminated the personal nature for yourself and have made it a contractual issue, while still protecting your faith. According to King James Version (2000), in Matthew 10:16 it states Behold, I send you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrew as serpents and as harmless as doves. My interpretation, in relation to this topic, this scripture admonishes Christians to stop being weak and start thinking. Will it hold up in court? Yes, it will. What you want to do is eliminate the personal nature. Discrimination is proven based on perception or in this case the manipulation of emotions. What you want to do is eliminate the personal nature and get a precedent from case law in regards to a business owner refusing service based on a preexisting contract with another business. The state of Oregon should have been more objective to see this case for what it really was – an attack on Christians for their religious beliefs and the infringement on the business right to refuse service. The most important question I ponder is how can you protect one’s right while infringing on another? According to Stolberg (2015), Kim Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court declared it a constitutional right. The way this
In 1960, the Oceana Supreme Court, in State v. Fenny, refused to the extend the 1803 statute to protect "homosexual marriage". This case is not applicable to Clark because the matter involves a homosexual act not a homosexual marriage.
Gambino, Lauren. "Texas Clerks Could Refuse to Issue Marriage Licenses to Same Sex Couples." The Guardian. 29 June 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June declaring a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Ms. Davis, due to her religious beliefs, has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to not only gay couples, but straight couples as well.
County Clerk Kim Davis, of Rowan County, Kentucky, is in a difficult situation because she refuses to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson have written an article about why they think she is doing the right thing not just religiously, but Constitutionally as well. They outline the reasons why the stand she is taking is her only option as a Christian and as an elected official of the United States.
Hundreds of protestors are gathering outside of the courthouse either protesting or supporting a Christian woman’s beliefs and actions. Many hold up signs or scream louder than others to declare their personal point of view. Kim Davis is a county clerk in Ashland, Kentucky; has denied numerous marriage licenses for multiple same-sex and straight couples (Smith). This has become a very controversial issue for many and everyone has a different opinion as well. Kim Davis' trial is an influential trial by challenging many of the essential American principles such as morality or ethicality, upholding constitutional rights, and separation of church and state.
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender
In a more recent issue Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, believes that she cannot grant marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Davis states that her faith upholds her from recognizing these marriages. The novel and the modern day example, both choose moral law over civil law.
How did the ancient city of Carthage almost become Rome’s equal? Also, how was this state of the city at this time come about in the ancient world? Carthage being a port city and Rome also being so close to the Mediterranean, gave both cities great business and imperial opportunities. In fact, both cities flourished because of their geographical locations to a certain extent. These opportunities and the desire to obtain them would eventually lead the two cities into war and conflict.
Now to put in perspective of religious beliefs, say there is a Christian engaged couple. One woman and one man. They come into a bakery and try to get a cake for their Christian wedding. Let’s say that the baker denies them service for their wedding because they are Christian, would they just walk out and be okay with the baker? No, they would go absolutely nuts and most likely be very angry. I personally do not believe it is acceptable to decimate based on race, sex, orientation or religion. “This bill will tear us apart”. ( youtube part 1
The act of limiting marriage, a beautiful and divine event that may happen only once in a lifetime by the government is totally wrong. Base on the 14th Amendment that I mentioned before, citizens cannot be limited by law to choose whether or not should they marry the person they love, it is immoral and ultimately unconstitutional. First, they were sentenced to jail because they violated the Racial Integrity Act of 1958 of Virginia which only allow same race marriage, then they were banished from Virginia for 25 years unless they want to stay in jail. I say that Virginia has gone too far in this case, not only they violated the Equal Protection with that Racial Integrity Act, they also stepped over due process of law.
As it was in the past history, today’s denial of the freedom to marry is part of establishing a larger and oppressive social vision by the government that encompasses individual ideologies such as Biblical values. In 2004 Liberal senator Guy Barnett petitioned the
The baker did not give a rejection on the basis of the Charging party's sexual orientation but, on his own religious beliefs. He refused because, "creating cakes for same-sex marriages would go against his...belief...taught in the bible" (McIntyre). His refusal to not make the cake for the same-sex couple is backed by the "First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and free religion exercise" which "he says prohibit Colorado from compelling him to make cakes that violate his conscience" (S.M.). He does not only exclude same-sex couple wedding
Judge Moore informed probate judges on the eve of the historical same-sex marriage decision that the federal ruling did not apply to them. Later on, in a separate ruling, it was ordered that the many of the counties that were holding back from marrying same-sex couples were to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Still Judge Moore says he stands firm in that while the court can authorize same-sex marriages but they cannot force a constitutional officer to disobey his oath by doing so (Elliott, 2015). Federal district judges held the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unconstitutional (Eastman, 2015). However, the United States Supreme Court met and ratified Chief Justice Moore’s stance.
As my artifact, I intend to describe how I organize notes in my personal digital notebook organizing system - Evernote. I will describe my current taxonomy that has since taken over my previous organizing system. Needless to say that 202 thinking has a played a big role in the overhauling my previous organizing structure.
Though I agree with her right to express it. I just don’t believe her personal prejudices should be brought into her work for the state government. I also agree with the court to telling her she must grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. While I agree private business has the right to decide since they are not being funded by tax payers’ money and people have the ability to find other options when a private business does not agree with their morals. But when it is a government official, the public has less options. Whether or not she agrees, she has to follow the