🌈 Supreme Court hearing on Gay Marriage 🌈

[HellToupee 2,299]

Private conference tomorrow, November 7th. If it’s overturned it sounds like it goes back to the states. 
I’m totally against this although I understand those that oppose this

Quote

 

Supreme Court v. Gay Marriage: Jim Obergefell’s Warning as Precedent Tested - Newsweek

 Summarize

Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the landmark 2015 Supreme Court ruling that guaranteed nationwide same-sex marriage rights, is "worried" and warns that the precedent his case established is now facing a "scary path."

The Supreme Court has scheduled a private conference for Friday to decide whether to hear a challenge brought by former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, which urges the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Matthew Staver, attorney for Davis, told Newsweek last monththat Obergefell "has no basis in the Constitution," saying the decade-old decision "could be overruled without affecting any other cases."

Although many legal analyst believe same-sex marriage rights are unlikely to be overturned, even by the conservative leaning Supreme Court, Obergefell told Newsweek in a Wednesday interview that he remains concerned. He pointed to the justices 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had guaranteed abortion access across the country for nearly 50 years.

"This court, to me, is far from normal, and that's what concerns me. We now have a Supreme Court that has shown it is willing to turn its back on precedent, which had always been a bedrock principle for the Supreme Court," he said.

Why It Matters

The deliberation over whether to revisit the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision comes as conservative legal advocates, some Republican lawmakers and advocacy groups have renewed efforts to limit or roll back federal protections for same-sex marriage. With six Republican-appointed justices to just three appointed by Democrats on the nation's top court, critics of the conservative majority fear the justices' willingness to overturn precedent—particularly after Roe was reversed a little more than three years ago.

If the Supreme Court chooses to hear Davis’ case and ultimately overturns Obergefell, the question of marriage equality could return to the states, likely ending nationwide uniformity and impacting hundreds of thousands of couples. However, many legal analysts believe the justices will not overturn the precedent, and some additional legal protections for same-sex married couples were passed into federal 

Davis became a national figure after she denied licenses to same-sex couples following the Obergefell ruling, over her religious objections. In September of that year, a judge held her in contempt, and she spent six days in jail. In Davis' petition filed to the Supreme Court, her attorney raised religious objections to same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court confirmed in October that the justices would consider the case on November 7.

"Obergefell was 'egregiously wrong,' 'deeply damaging,' 'far outside the bound of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed,' and set out 'on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,'" Staver wrote.

The filing said that if the court overturns Obergefell, marriage rights would be returned to the states, but that any same-sex couples who were married since the ruling would be grandfathered.

Davis' arguments have already been rejected by lower courts. A 6th District Court of Appeals panel earlier this year dismissed her First Amendment argument because she is being "held liable for state action," rather than her individual actions.

"Although Davis's assertions are novel, they fail under basic constitutional principles. Under § 1983, Davis is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect—so the Free Exercise Clause cannot shield her from liability," that ruling reads.

The Supreme Court also previously denied an appeal filed by Davis in 2020. Davis’ new appeal contends she should not be personally liable and has called on the Supreme Court to overrule Obergefell, charging that the decision lacks constitutional basis and has harmed religious liberty.

Some legal analysts believe the Supreme Court may agree to take the case, but ultimately could decide more narrowly that individuals should be granted religious exemptions from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Notably, this would align with a Texas Supreme Court decision from late last month, which granted judges in the state exemptions from performing same-sex marriages based on "sincerely held religious beliefs."

"Even if the Court were to grant review, it may decide the case on narrow legal grounds and allow for religious accommodations for government officials like Davis instead of invalidating same sex marriage entirely," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani previously told Newsweek.

Marilyn Chinitz, partner in the Matrimonial & Family Law Group at Blank Rome, shared a similar view with Newsweek, saying, "If the Supreme Court takes this case, it will not be to overturn Obergefell, but it could be reviewed in a narrow way, determining whether a state official can claim a religious exemption from performing official duties. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will use this case to overturn the landmark case."

What Obergefell Would Ask Kim Davis

Obergefell told Newsweek that even a more narrow ruling granting religious exemptions would open "Pandora's box."

"I just don't see how our country, the country that we were promised and that we've been working towards, nder this Constitution could survive if every person has the right to say, 'Well, my religious beliefs are more important. So what you're asking for, even though it's the law, you don't get it," he said.

The civil rights activist pointed out that Davis has been divorced several times, noting that this is counter to some Americans' religious beliefs as well.

"I would like to say to Kim Davis, you've been divorced three times. When you went before a judge for your divorce hearings, how would have you felt had that judge said, 'Well, sorry, Kim. My religious faith is such that divorce is wrong and that women cannot divorce their husbands. So your petition for divorce is denied,' How would that feel?" Obergefell asked.

Jim Obergefell speaks during Family Equality's Night at the Pier at Pier Sixty at Chelsea Piers on May 12 in New York City. (Photo by Dimitrios Kambou...

Conservative Supreme Court Justice's Views on Obergefell

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, signaled interest in reexamining past precedents like Obergefell in a concurrence with the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling overturning Roe. However, more recently Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Alito have commented publicly on the issue of same-sex marriage.

In October, Alito reiterated past criticism of Obergefell, in which he dissented. However, he also clarified: “In commenting on Obergefell, I am not suggesting that the decision in that case should be overruled."

Barrett, appointed to the court in 2020 by President Donald Trump, told The New York Times' Ross Douthat last month that same-sex marriage has “very concrete reliance interest.” She defined reliance interest as “things that would be upset or undone if a decision is undone.”

In Barrett's new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, which was released in September, she wrote that "rights to marry" are "fundamental."

But Obergefell, like many other who are concerned about the Supreme Court's conservative majority, takes little comfort in their words.

"I refer everyone back to Roe v. Wade. Why should we trust anything that comes out of these justices' mouths?" he asked. "Because I've seen that they are willing to overturn a right that people relied on for almost 50 years in our nation. They're willing to overturn that, even though they either said or intimated that it was settled law. So I don't find much comfort in that, to be honest."

2022 Respect for Marriage Act

After Roe was overturned, there was significant concern from many that same-sex marriage could also be next. In response, Congress passed the bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act later that year, which shored up protections for same-sex marriage.

While Supreme Court could still overturn Obergefell, and conservative states could then outlaw issuing same-sex marriage licenses, the bipartisan legislation requires states to recognize all marriages performed in other domestic or foreign jurisdictions. In the House, 39 Republicans voted "Yea," as did 12 GOP senators—meaning a significant majority of the GOP lawmakers voted against the bill in both chambers.

What Polls Show About Americans' Views of Same-Sex Marriage

Despite recent conservative backlash, support for same-sex marriage remains strong nationally—Gallup polling found 68 percent of Americans supported same-sex marriage as of May. However, Gallup's polling also shows declining support among Republicans.

In 2015, the pollster showed that just 37 percent of Republicans thought same-sex marriages should be valid. The figure rose to a record high of 55 percent in 2022 and 2023. It has since dropped to 41 percent as of the spring—a double-digit decline.

Jim Obergefell holds a photo of his late husband John Arthur as he speaks to members of the media after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling re...

What People Are Saying

Jim Obergefell to Newsweek:  "There's the joy I feel because, I mean, several hundred thousand queer couples have gotten married, families have formed, and queer kids have grown up knowing that marriage is a possibility for them in the future. So on one hand, I just feel nothing but joy because I know the difference it has made. I know that it's made this country a better place. But then that's balanced by my fear for the right to marry. Given everything that's happening in our nation."

Matthew Staver, attorney for Kim Davis, told Newsweek in October: "Obergefell has no basis in the Constitution, and It's not even rooted in substantive due process. It's on an island by itself. I believe therefore Obergefell could clearly be overruled without affecting any other cases. And I think that's the big difference here between the Obergefell and even the Roe v. Wade, the decision that was overruled in Dobbs, It's on an island of its own creation."

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an August interview on the Raging Moderates podcast: “The Supreme Court will hear a case about gay marriage; my prediction is they will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion — they will send it back to the states. Anybody in a committed relationship out there in the LGBTQ community, you ought to consider getting married because I don’t think they’ll undo existing marriages, but I fear they will undo the national right."

Daniel Innis, chair of LGBTQ+ group Log Cabin Republicans, previously told Newsweek: "Most Americans... support our right to marry in our community. The big thing was, 'Oh, it's going to destroy traditional marriage.' Really? You guys have pretty well done that on your own with a 50 percent divorce rate. So you didn't need anything from us. Look, if anything, I think it's brought us to a place where we're more accepted in our communities, because now folks who maybe aren't a part of our community are seeing that we have the same love and commitment for one another as they do for their spouses."

 Marilyn Chinitz, partner in the Matrimonial & Family Law Group at Blank Rome, told Newsweek: "Of course, Davis is free to hold her beliefs and no one is stopping her from doing so, but does she have a right as a government employee to deny others their constitutional rights while performing her public duties? The answer is no. The case really tests how far religious liberty extends for government employees. The Justices may view this case as a chance to clarify how government employees can be accommodated without violating other rights, but these public officials, as an extension of the government, have no right whatsoever to selectively perform their duties."

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court is expected to announce soon after its Friday conference whether it will grant certiorari in Davis’ case. If the court accepts the case, oral arguments could be scheduled for the spring, with a possible decision by June. Should the court deny review, the lower court rulings against Davis, and in favor of the marriage-equality plaintiffs, will stand.

Update, 11/6/25 at 11:30 a.m.: Additional information was added.

 

[Grace Under Pressure 244]

If they accept the case the GOP will be cooked in 2026 and 2028. Perhaps longer.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,590]

govt should stay out of all marriages

 

[squistion 2,676]

22 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Private conference tomorrow, November 7th. If it’s overturned it sounds like it goes back to the states. 
I’m totally against this although I understand those that oppose this

tldr

Are you in favor of gay marriage or not?

[MDC 8,140]

25 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

If they accept the case the GOP will be cooked in 2026 and 2028. Perhaps longer.

I thought that when RvW was overturned. 

[Ron_Artest 2,536]

This will be great for Trump

[Grace Under Pressure 244]

11 minutes ago, MDC said:

I thought that when RvW was overturned. 

Opposing 2 people getting married is a bridge too far for 70% of Americans last poll I saw. Including like 50%+ GOP. Abortion is controversial, gays getting married not so much. 

[BrahmaBulls 990]

I have no issue if Squis wants to marry Gutter.  Government should stay the F out of it.

[MDC 8,140]

14 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Opposing 2 people getting married is a bridge too far for 70% of Americans last poll I saw. Including like 50%+ GOP. Abortion is controversial, gays getting married not so much. 

I think the GOP is probably cooked in 2026 at least regardless. Just saying, when RvW was overturned I thought there was a 0% chance any Republican wins the WH in ‘24, but they played it off as a “state rights” issue and won anyway. 

[HellToupee 2,299]

38 minutes ago, squistion said:

tldr

Are you in favor of gay marriage or not?

I’m all for the gays being able to get married .Why on earth should that be taken away.

How do you feel about it?

[jerryskids 7,216]

1 hour ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

If they accept the case the GOP will be cooked in 2026 and 2028. Perhaps longer.

Just by accepting the case?  What if they find in favor of gay marriage?   

[FrancieFootball 294]

I am somewhat surprised and encouraged by many of the posts here.

[Grace Under Pressure 244]

31 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Just by accepting the case?  What if they find in favor of gay marriage?   

Because denying hearing the case IS ITSELF ruling in favor of gay marriage. There’s no point in accepting the case if they just plan to find in favor of gay marriage: 

”If the court accepts the case, oral arguments could be scheduled for the spring, with a possible decision by June. Should the court deny review, the lower court rulings against Davis, and in favor of the marriage-equality plaintiffs, will stand.”

Obergefell is already the standing ruling.

You realize this, yes? 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,590]

49 minutes ago, FrancieFootball said:

I am somewhat surprised and encouraged by many of the posts here.

Cause nobody really cares who gets married. This case is about someone else’s civil rights being forced to marry someone and opposing that persons religious convictions. 
 

just like nobody should be forced to bake a gay cake. Nobody should be forced to marry gays. As dumb as that is. 

[5-Points 3,848]

As I said at the time, it was a slippery sloap that would open the door to all kinds of depravity. 

 

History shows I was right. As usual. 

[FrancieFootball 294]

57 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

As I said at the time, it was a slippery sloap that would open the door to all kinds of depravity. 

 

History shows I was right. As usual. 

What is a slippery sloap? 

[MDC 8,140]

1 hour ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Cause nobody really cares who gets married. This case is about someone else’s civil rights being forced to marry someone and opposing that persons religious convictions. 
 

What a load of crap. Nobody forced her to marry gay couples. She could get another job that doesn’t involve issuing marriage licenses. If your belief in the Sky Fairy prevents you from fulfilling the responsibilities of your job, go get a new one.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,590]

Just now, MDC said:

What a load of crap. Nobody forced her to marry gay couples. She could get another job that doesn’t involve issuing marriage licenses. If your belief in the Sky Fairy prevents you from fulfilling the responsibilities of your job, go get a new one.

All I’m saying is what the case is about. Hold your panties. Why have you become such a little girl nowadays. You used to not be. 

[Maximum Overkill 2,649]

5 hours ago, FrancieFootball said:

What is a slippery sloap? 

It's slope. Not slippery sloap. 

I thought you said that you went to college? 

[Maximum Overkill 2,649]

Gays should 100% be able to get married, without question. Love who you want to love. We love the gays. 

Trannies should be in mental asylums.  

[MDC 8,140]

7 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

All I’m saying is what the case is about. Hold your panties. Why have you become such a little girl nowadays. You used to not be. 

And I’m saying the idea that this woman’s civil rights were violated because she had to do her job is bunk. HTH.

[avoiding injuries 1,659]

Imagine being gay in NYC and Mamdani invites you to a rooftop cocktail party. Would you go?

[5-Points 3,848]

8 hours ago, FrancieFootball said:

What is a slippery sloap? 

Something I learned in prison.

[squistion 2,676]

Quote

Imagine being gay in NYC and Mamdani invites you to a rooftop cocktail party. Would you go?

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2025/10/11/amid-criticism--mamdani-leans-into-gay-rights

Amid criticism, Mamdani leans into LGBTQ rights

Saturday was National Coming Out Day, a natural opportunity for Democratic candidate for mayor Zohran Mamdani to talk LGBTQ issues.

He championed trans rights in a new campaign video -- “New York will not sit idly by while trans people are attacked," he tells the camera -- and at a "Gays for Zohran" rally in Greenwich Village.

“We have to stand up for queer New Yorkers every single day," he told the crowd. 

But it was also a chance for Mamdani to push back on the controversy over photos he took in July alongside a top Ugandan official, Rebecca Kadaga, who has spearheaded draconian anti-gay legislation.

“Had I known that she was the architect of this horrific legislation and attack on queer Ugandans, I would not have taken it," he told reporters Saturday. [...]

[HellToupee 2,299]

1 hour ago, avoiding injuries said:

Imagine being gay in NYC and Mamdani invites you to a rooftop cocktail party. Would you go?

Word is Mamdani is going to bring back smear the queer game to the schools to normalize his views and gradually work up to rooftop parties 

[squistion 2,676]

Just now, HellToupee said:

Word is Mamdani is going to bring back smear the queer game to the schools to normalize his views and gradually work up to rooftop parties 

Word is you are the biggest anti-Muslim bigot in this forum and have called them "savages" on more than one occassion. 

[FrancieFootball 294]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

Something I learned in prison.

I want to party with you.

[HellToupee 2,299]

14 minutes ago, squistion said:

Word is you are the biggest anti-Muslim bigot in this forum and have called them "savages" on more than one occassion. 

Word is you’re a sissy but I refuse to believe it

 

once again you leave out the context used in calling some “savages”. Those that persecute gays and hurl them off roofs are indeed savages. SA little boys and girls are savages

 

Gay Afghan student ‘murdered by Taliban’ as anti-LGBTQ+ violence rises

This article is more than 3 years old

Death of Hamed Sabouri is latest in wave of attacks, with rights groups warning thousands are in hiding or trying to flee country

 

Supported by

About this content

Deepa Parent

Tue 18 Oct 2022 13.24 EDT

Share

 

 

The abduction, torture and murder of a gay aspiring medical student, who was stopped at a traffic checkpoint by Taliban gunmen, is the latest victim of a string of violence against Afghanistan’s LGBTQ+ community, human rights groups warn.

Savages

 

U.K. ‘Grooming Gang’ Leader Sentenced to 35 Years for Rape

Seven men in all were sentenced on Wednesday over their roles in a decades-old national scandal in Britain involving child sexual abuse.

Oct. 1, 

The ringleader of a group of men who raped and abused two teenage girls in the northern English town of Rochdale was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday, in the latest criminal case in Britain seeking accountability for decades of offending by so-called “grooming gangs.”

Mohammed Zahid, now 65, was sentenced alongside six other men for raping the girls, whom he targeted from the age of 13 after they started working at his market stall.

 

SAVAGES.

[squistion 2,676]

17 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

once again you leave out the context used in calling some “savages”. Those that persecute gays and hurl them off roofs are indeed savages. SA little boys and girls are savages

Your "context"  is that because some Muslims in the world commit horrible crimes, that means you can call all Muslims savages. 

Fun Fact: No gay person has been thrown off a building in the United States. 

[jerryskids 7,216]

11 hours ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Because denying hearing the case IS ITSELF ruling in favor of gay marriage. There’s no point in accepting the case if they just plan to find in favor of gay marriage: 

”If the court accepts the case, oral arguments could be scheduled for the spring, with a possible decision by June. Should the court deny review, the lower court rulings against Davis, and in favor of the marriage-equality plaintiffs, will stand.”

Obergefell is already the standing ruling.

You realize this, yes? 

You realize that not every case that is heard by SCOTUS overturns lower court rulings, yes?  In fact I would guess this is much more often the case.

Perhaps they just want to affirm the lower court ruling.  This would put more weight on the ruling, and make it harder for someone down the road to challenge it.

Perhaps they want to say that as opposed to abortion, where Congress did nothing in 50 years to codify it, in this case Congress enacted the Respect for Marriage Act, so everyone just relax.

Or perhaps they want to weigh in on what to do in the case of the plaintiff.  IMO I agree with @MDC -- she's not officiating or blessing anything, she is just issuing a license, and if she won't do that, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.  But maybe they would say that governments need to make reasonable accommodations, like if there are 5 people who issue such licenses, have one of the other 4 do it.

 

2 hours ago, avoiding injuries said:

Imagine being gay in NYC and Mamdani invites you to a rooftop cocktail party. Would you go?

Depends.  Mamdani isn't strong enough to throw anyone off a roof.  But if he invites his Imam buddy, the one who was an unindicted co-conspirator of 9/11?  I'd pass.  

[lickin_starfish 2,043]

I support gay marriage, but oppose gays adopting children. It's too tempting for the degenerates to not keep their hands off the kids. It's like shower time at Timmy's house.

[Tree of Knowledge 2,278]

2 hours ago, avoiding injuries said:

Imagine being gay in NYC and Mamdani invites you to a rooftop cocktail party. Would you go?

I don’t think throwing the LGBTQ+ crowd off buildings is the preferred method of Zoltar.  However, my cousin has a friend in the limestone and gravel industry.  His friend said a competitor just won a huge bid from NYC that has to be delivered the first week of January.  Infer what you want….

[Grace Under Pressure 244]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Perhaps they just want to affirm the lower court ruling.  This would put more weight on the ruling, and make it harder for someone down the road to challenge it.

Perhaps they want to say that as opposed to abortion, where Congress did nothing in 50 years to codify it, in this case Congress enacted the Respect for Marriage Act, so everyone just relax.

You think if they take the case, it's because they are going to further affirm gay marriage as a federally protected right under Obergefell?

If they take this case, they are going to "put it back to the states". 100%.

I understand the contrarian 0.00001% other possibilities. Don't be so naive. Your willingness to defend, in advance, the moral depravity of this court and administration is misplaced.

If they don't take the case, I will commend them for being pro gay marriage. If they take the case, it is wholly to strike it down. Book it.

[Tree of Knowledge 2,278]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Fun Fact: No gay person has been thrown off a building in the United States. 

Correct:  They jumped involuntarily.

[jerryskids 7,216]

21 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

You think if they take the case, it's because they are going to further affirm gay marriage as a federally protected right under Obergefell?

If they take this case, they are going to "put it back to the states". 100%.

I understand the contrarian 0.00001% other possibilities. Don't be so naive. Your willingness to defend, in advance, the moral depravity of this court and administration is misplaced.

If they don't take the case, I will commend them for being pro gay marriage. If they take the case, it is wholly to strike it down. Book it.

Sigh... whenever I see posts like this, I respond with the following:

https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology

You'll note the following:

- Sotomayor is the most biased and it isn't close.  She is a joke, just voting for whatever progressive cause du jour with no thought about the law.

- Alito and Thomas are next.

- Kagan and Brown-Jackson are next.

- The four other judges are all center right and the least biased.

 

None of you libs ever respond to these posts, because the cognitive dissonance messes with your preconceived notions that the court is just a puppet for Trump and other pablum.

This is all not to say that SCOTUS might do what you say.  They might.  Constitutionally, it's arguably the correct thing to do.  But you know Roberts doesn't want to do it, so all it takes is one of the other 3 center-right justices to oppose it and he will side with the leftie loon justices.

[Grace Under Pressure 244]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

This is all not to say that SCOTUS might do what you say.  They might.  Constitutionally, it's arguably the correct thing to do.  But you know Roberts doesn't want to do it, so all it takes is one of the other 3 center-right justices to oppose it and he will side with the leftie loon justices.

Constitutionally it's the correct thing to do? Marriage isn't mentioned once in the Constitution. The only stretch is the 14th Amendment providing equal protection, which is a pro gay marriage argument obviously.

If they take the case, and the outcome somehow supports gay marriage, or protects it further? I'll show up back here and re-think the discussion. If they don't take the case, I'll give them a pat on the back. When they take the case, and "put the decision back to the states", I'll remember the disingenuous arguments as well.

[jerryskids 7,216]

37 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Constitutionally it's the correct thing to do? Marriage isn't mentioned once in the Constitution. The only stretch is the 14th Amendment providing equal protection, which is a pro gay marriage argument obviously.

If they take the case, and the outcome somehow supports gay marriage, or protects it further? I'll show up back here and re-think the discussion. If they don't take the case, I'll give them a pat on the back. When they take the case, and "put the decision back to the states", I'll remember the disingenuous arguments as well.

Well, you are proving my point about the Constitution.  There is no enumerated federal power regarding marriage, so it technically defaults to the states.

Guess we'll see.   

[TBayXXXVII 2,683]

17 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

govt should stay out of all marriages

 

Yup.

[TBayXXXVII 2,683]

13 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

You used to not be. 

When was that?

[MDC 8,140]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Or perhaps they want to weigh in on what to do in the case of the plaintiff.  IMO I agree with @MDC -- she's not officiating or blessing anything, she is just issuing a license, and if she won't do that, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.  But maybe they would say that governments need to make reasonable accommodations, like if there are 5 people who issue such licenses, have one of the other 4 do it.

 

 

Personally, I think it’s sort of ridiculous that businesses are expected to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious beliefs when it comes to doing the duties of their job. Versus all kinds of other moral or political beliefs. But since that’s where we’re at, I agree: if there’s a way to let one person off the hook for issuing gay licenses without inconveniencing anyone else, go ahead.

I think the clerk is a hypocrite, since she’s not refusing licenses to couples who are remarrying, unwilling or unable to have kids etc. But that’s another story.

The idea that her civil rights were violated is laughable. If anyone’s rights were violated it’s the gay couple who couldn’t get a marriage license because she’s a bigot.

I know this isn’t your opinion, just spouting off.