Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[Ryujin]

Religious motivation is not sufficient for invocation of the Establishment clause. It could even be argued to even be unnecessary, but I can't see a situation where a religious test occurs without religious motivation without doing some very unrealistic logical limbo dancing.

If having religious motivation for doing something is sufficient, get ready for Establishment clause challenges to such things as Medicare.

I get that people would really like to see the use of the 1st via the Establishment clause used to show that this person's use of the 1st is invalid because it would be a fantastically ironic twist, but it's not a case you can win on.

cf. "Endorsement Test" and related decisions.

... or we just skip the First and jump right on down to the Fourteenth Amendment, like the USSC did.

... or somehow get her to run afoul of the IRS. Those buggers just don't give up.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Endorsement doesn't really work here as there's no direct endorsement of a religion. A gay couple couldn't get a license is they agreed to an endorsed religious precept, frex.

And I've been saying that this is unconstitutional under the 14th for awhile now. You don't need to try a hail mary under the EC to get to unconstitutional.

 

[cmad1977]

Organized religion, and a spiritual belief (faith) aren't the same things at all
same with politics and the parties that are supposed to represent certain political beliefs

I've had a near death experience and bunch of things after that...let's just say that I think the hate-filled, greedy flumph-licking twerps like this woman, and extremists of all types, and sociopaths-by-choice Oligarchs, well, they are in for one hell of a surprise
Each to their fate, leave them to it, until they seriously harm or risk others.
Gay, straight, white, black, Moslem, Christian, Atheist, 1st ed, 3rd Ed....who cares, it's all flavour or the world would be boring!

Right??

Except those 4e people. Those sinner can burn!!!!

... Hehe.

 

[Ryujin]

Endorsement doesn't really work here as there's no direct endorsement of a religion. A gay couple couldn't get a license is they agreed to an endorsed religious precept, frex.

And I've been saying that this is unconstitutional under the 14th for awhile now. You don't need to try a hail mary under the EC to get to unconstitutional.

It's denial based on failure to adhere to religious tenets, causing a disenfranchisement.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's denial based on failure to adhere to religious tenets, causing a disenfranchisement.

No. It's denial based on being gay. There is no religious tenet the supplicate can advocate to bypass the test. SCOTUS has adjust clearly also religious motivation for moral decisions behind laws (blue laws, frex). It's the actual test that matters, not the motivation behind the test (unless the test assists to be religious in nature (this isn't, it's sexual orientation in nature) on which the court can consider if it's purely religious or also serves a valid secular purpose).

 

[Kramodlog]

Pope said hello to Kim Davis. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...iss-alleged-secret-meeting-with-pope-francis/

I hope this reminds everyone that the Catholic Church hasn't changed. It just has a more charismatic supreme leader.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hm,

Is there no case where an ostensibly non-religious activity might still trigger the establishment cause?

For example, if one religious sect worships on Saturday, and another on Sunday, and laws are made to prohibit work on Sunday, while Saturday was made a mandatory civic service day, that is not on its face religious, but the effect clearly promotes one religion over another.

In this case, marriage can be seen as an intrinsically religious institution, and the institution is being allowed in a manner which is consistent with one religion, while being disallowed in a manner which is hews to a different religion.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Janx]

Pope said hello to Kim Davis. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...iss-alleged-secret-meeting-with-pope-francis/

I hope this reminds everyone that the Catholic Church hasn't changed. It just has a more charismatic supreme leader.

Unfortunately, this official attention gives her actions increased perceived legitimacy. Because the Pope doesn't meet with people like her just to to tell her "no, you shouldn't have done that."

All she had to do was resign in protest when the law changed/SCOTUS made its ruling.

Now, she's got "even the pope agrees with me" as tacit agreement that interfering with the operation of a government office as a sworn officer is acceptable.

 

[Janx]

Hm,

Is there no case where an ostensibly non-religious activity might still trigger the establishment cause?

For example, if one religious sect worships on Saturday, and another on Sunday, and laws are made to prohibit work on Sunday, while Saturday was made a mandatory civic service day, that is not on its face religious, but the effect clearly promotes one religion over another.

In this case, marriage can be seen as an intrinsically religious institution, and the institution is being allowed in a manner which is consistent with one religion, while being disallowed in a manner which is hews to a different religion.

Thx!
TomB

given that the bible actually says to exile somebody who works on the sabbath, it's a pretty short conclusion that the 2 laws are meant to screw one religion and support another.

That's probably the sniff test for bias in the first place, is that the laws happen to align with one religion, and screw another. Once bias is detected, it's a short hop to court to argue a case.

 

[billd91]

Now, she's got "even the pope agrees with me" as tacit agreement that interfering with the operation of a government office as a sworn officer is acceptable.

And, you know, there's a certain ilk of American Bible-thumpers who will probably be touting this as an important endorsement of Davis's position even though they'd probably have been the first to accuse a Catholic politician of being subservient to the Papacy when running for office.