Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[Ovinomancer]

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

Yes, there are a number of possible laws. A recent one overturned by SCOTUS concerned (iirc) subsidies to schools that did... something (can't recall). Turns out that the vast majority of subsidies were going to Catholic private schools because they were really the only ones doing that... something (still can't recall). This was construed as a tacit endorsement of a religious activity under the endorsement prong of the Lemon test and nullified. So you can do that.

Your conjecture might fail on the second prong of the Lemon test. I think that's the strongest challenge to it, but it might not be enough. If not having the day off didn't inhibit the practice of religion 2, then it's not a problem. if it does -- the religion requires the day off, or mandatory duties that don't mesh with work -- then it does.

However, if you strike the mandatory day on out of the law and just keep the day off -- no, it doesn't run afoul of the Establishment Clause.

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.

It's not probably the sniff test, it is actually part of the sniff test. However, bias isn't the tested thing, and may not matter in the least. Blue laws (dry counties, dry Sundays) are biased because they're clearly based on a religious morality. But based on religious morality isn't enough to trigger the Establishment clause, so long as you don't entangle government with religion directly (as in state in the church or church in the state), don't suppress or advance a religion (not drinking alcohol doesn't do either), and have at least a fig leaf of a secular reason. Blue laws promote a uniform day of rest, which is a public good.

 

[Umbran]

And, you know, there's a certain ilk of American Bible-thumpers

Folks, can we hold off on the disparaging names, and phraseology, please? Thanks

 

[calronmoonflower]

Kentucky has a religious accommodation law to the complication. So as long as homosexual couples can get legal licenses without her having to sign on to them, then the law is on her side on the issue. As long as these licenses are legally issued by her department, it is not a matter gay being deigned their rights. It would instead be about forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs without a compelling reason to.

Of course in at least one state a old law can actually make it possible to legally completely stop issuing license.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...id-issuing-marriage-licenses-for-gay-couples/
Notice the context in which the law was changed.

 

[Kramodlog]

Proving this ain't about religion, but about hate.

 

[Ryujin]

Kentucky has a religious accommodation law to the complication. So as long as homosexual couples can get legal licenses without her having to sign on to them, then the law is on her side on the issue. As long as these licenses are legally issued by her department, it is not a matter gay being deigned their rights. It would instead be about forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs without a compelling reason to.

Of course in at least one state a old law can actually make it possible to legally completely stop issuing license.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...id-issuing-marriage-licenses-for-gay-couples/
Notice the context in which the law was changed.

She has taken steps to make it impossible.

 

[Ryujin]

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).

I yield to your logic. I was trying to create reciprocity, where it doesn't exist in law. It should, but it doesn't. I still want to see her nethers slowly fry though.

 

[tomBitonti]

Not sure if this works, but technically, isn't this discrimination based on gender (and not being gay per se)? That is, the lady never actually verifies the sexual orientation of the applicants, and would probably allow a gay man or woman marry a person of the opposite sex.

That seems to break down when you consider that hardly anyone who isn't gay would want to marry a person of their own gender. So I don't think that it works. It's just curious.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, but the crime is discrimination based on sexual identity, not based on religion. The Establishment clause doesn't care why you discriminate, it cares what the basis of discrimination is (it did far more than discrimination, that's just the angle here). If the test is religious, it's a violation whether the rational for the test is religious or not. If the test isn't religious, is not a violation regardless of whether it not the motivation was religious.

See the article I quoted above about prayer in school: an offense can violate more than one clause of the Constitution simultaneously. You don't have to stop just because you've got grounds for one violation if multiples are present.

Here, the violation was both based on sexual identity AND religiously motivated (as per the explicit claims of the clerk). In fact, it could be argued that, but for her religion, she might not have raised the objection.

IOW, an Establishment clause violation can be considered.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Motivation always matters. The reason why you DON'T see successful Establishment clause challenges is that the mere presence of a religious motivation is insufficient to win the challenge as long as there is another compelling interest in retaining the law. Case law is littered with such decisions.

Certain faiths call for the ritualized slaughter of animals. If the majority of a municipality finds one such faith's practices religiously repugnant and convinces their council to pass a law governing the slaughter of animals within city limits in such a way that prevents those faiths from performing their sacrifices within city limits, that law will withstand an Establishment clause challenge so long as the city can show that it works in conjunction- and non-discriminatorily- with the city's other regulations regarding zoning, sanitation, disposal of animal carcasses, cruelty to animals, licensing requirements for slaughterhouses in general, etc.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

I was in the Vatican when this broke. Their story differs greatly from hers, and they're not pleased with her. In fact, heads may roll.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-po...-to-clerk-in-gay-marriage-row-vatican-2015-10

http://usuncut.com/news/pope-franci...bishop-who-set-up-the-meeting-with-kim-davis/