I’m sure you have a source, then, considering the pre-Biden standing legal precedent that a government official can’t refuse to certify or recognize a marriage on religious grounds, and the Respect of Marriage Act signed into law by Biden forbidding any state or territory of the US from refusing to recognize lawful marriages.
“Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.”
– The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) Section 2
“shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection…shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.”
– The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) Section 6(b)
“Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.”
“Due proper respect” here apparently being interpreted, by you, to mean “allowed to break established law and violate this very bill”?
“shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection…shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.”
– The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) Section 6(b)
Oh? Let’s check that actual section and see what it says
(b) Goods or Services.— Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
So your line about officials being able to refuse to certify marriages was, predictably, misinformation and bullshit. But I’m sure you already knew that. Either that or your reading comprehension is as bad as the average fascist.
you’re doing a lot of heavy lifting to avoid admitting you were wrong.
first off, my claim wasn’t “section 6(b) applies to gov’t officials.” i said biden has given permission for officials to refuse. you read “the act itself” as my only source, but i never said that was the sole source. you filled in the blank, then called me a fascist for it. solid work.
second, this idea that pre-biden precedent “forbade” gov’t officials from refusing to certify marriages? cute. ask kim davis how that ironclad precedent worked out. she straight-up refused, kept her job, and became a folk hero. so no, it wasn’t some pristine rule you’re pretending it was.
third, you breeze right past the part where i was right about the act expanding religious refusal rights for nonprofits, then pivot like that’s irrelevant. it’s not. because the logic doesn’t stay neatly in its lane. you carve out explicit statutory protection for one group’s “sincere beliefs,” and you think gov’t officials won’t notice? states will run with it, and they already are.
so no, it wasn’t “misinformation.” it was a prediction. and you still haven’t shown it’s false—just that you don’t like the delivery.
Pushing the old Nazi line of repeating an idiotic lie in the hopes that it will be believed. Have you considered a job in the current fascist administration? I’m sure they’d love to have you.
first off, my claim wasn’t “section 6(b) applies to gov’t officials.” i said biden has given permission for officials to refuse. you read “the act itself” as my only source, but i never said that was the sole source. you filled in the blank, then called me a fascist for it. solid work.
“Biden has given permission for government officials to refuse.”
“I’m sure you have a source.”
“Section 6(b) of the Respect of Marriage Act.”
“That says nothing of the sort, and you literally had to chop off the quote mid-sentence to avoid stating as much.”
“HA! You thought THAT was my SOURCE?”
Here, I’ll say it again - this is the moronic dribble of a dyed-in-the-wool fascist who cares about nothing except totalitarian cacophony.
cute. ask kim davis how that ironclad precedent worked out. she straight-up refused, kept her job, and became a folk hero. so no, it wasn’t some pristine rule you’re pretending it was.
What years was Kim Davis in office, and what was the result of the hubub? Remind me.
Additionally, just for kicks, what years was Biden in office?
third, you breeze right past the part where i was right about the act expanding religious refusal rights for nonprofits,
That was never a point you made or a point in dispute. Since your memory and reading comprehension, typical of fascists, is so meagre, let me remind you of the totality of your claims before that point:
and pointlessly so, biden has given anyone permission for any gov’t official to refusal to certify or recognize a marriage by simply saying that it’s against their religion.
and it will be reversed without more bricks.
please identify where the misinformation is
[incorrect citation of the Respect of Marriage Act]
you keep demanding a fucking statute that says “gov’t officials may refuse,” then act like you won when you don’t see it. that’s not how this works.
kim davis literally refused, stayed in office, and precedent did jack shit to stop her. the act didn’t close that loophole. it actually affirmed anti-marriage beliefs as “reasonable” and “due respect.” you think officials won’t notice that?
you also keep pretending section 6(b) is irrelevant because it says “nonprofits.” cute. but the point isn’t that it covers officials directly—it’s that the law carves out explicit refusal rights for one group based on “sincere belief,” and there’s nothing in the text stopping courts from extending that logic to the next one. that’s not misinformation. that’s a prediction. and you still haven’t shown it’s false.
calling someone a fascist because they quoted a law correctly and drew a conclusion you don’t like isn’t an argument. it’s a tantrum and your unhinged response is proof of it. you’re so busy screaming “bullshit” that you never actually proved it’s bullshit.
so no, i wasn’t wrong and you’re still pretending the fire isn’t real because the match hasn’t been entered into evidence.
I’m sure you have a source, then, considering the pre-Biden standing legal precedent that a government official can’t refuse to certify or recognize a marriage on religious grounds, and the Respect of Marriage Act signed into law by Biden forbidding any state or territory of the US from refusing to recognize lawful marriages.
the source is the act itself; dig deeper into it:
– The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) Section 2
– The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) Section 6(b)
“Due proper respect” here apparently being interpreted, by you, to mean “allowed to break established law and violate this very bill”?
Oh? Let’s check that actual section and see what it says
So your line about officials being able to refuse to certify marriages was, predictably, misinformation and bullshit. But I’m sure you already knew that. Either that or your reading comprehension is as bad as the average fascist.
you’re doing a lot of heavy lifting to avoid admitting you were wrong.
first off, my claim wasn’t “section 6(b) applies to gov’t officials.” i said biden has given permission for officials to refuse. you read “the act itself” as my only source, but i never said that was the sole source. you filled in the blank, then called me a fascist for it. solid work.
second, this idea that pre-biden precedent “forbade” gov’t officials from refusing to certify marriages? cute. ask kim davis how that ironclad precedent worked out. she straight-up refused, kept her job, and became a folk hero. so no, it wasn’t some pristine rule you’re pretending it was.
third, you breeze right past the part where i was right about the act expanding religious refusal rights for nonprofits, then pivot like that’s irrelevant. it’s not. because the logic doesn’t stay neatly in its lane. you carve out explicit statutory protection for one group’s “sincere beliefs,” and you think gov’t officials won’t notice? states will run with it, and they already are.
so no, it wasn’t “misinformation.” it was a prediction. and you still haven’t shown it’s false—just that you don’t like the delivery.
Pushing the old Nazi line of repeating an idiotic lie in the hopes that it will be believed. Have you considered a job in the current fascist administration? I’m sure they’d love to have you.
“Biden has given permission for government officials to refuse.”
“I’m sure you have a source.”
“Section 6(b) of the Respect of Marriage Act.”
“That says nothing of the sort, and you literally had to chop off the quote mid-sentence to avoid stating as much.”
“HA! You thought THAT was my SOURCE?”
Here, I’ll say it again - this is the moronic dribble of a dyed-in-the-wool fascist who cares about nothing except totalitarian cacophony.
What years was Kim Davis in office, and what was the result of the hubub? Remind me.
Additionally, just for kicks, what years was Biden in office?
That was never a point you made or a point in dispute. Since your memory and reading comprehension, typical of fascists, is so meagre, let me remind you of the totality of your claims before that point:
you keep demanding a fucking statute that says “gov’t officials may refuse,” then act like you won when you don’t see it. that’s not how this works.
kim davis literally refused, stayed in office, and precedent did jack shit to stop her. the act didn’t close that loophole. it actually affirmed anti-marriage beliefs as “reasonable” and “due respect.” you think officials won’t notice that?
you also keep pretending section 6(b) is irrelevant because it says “nonprofits.” cute. but the point isn’t that it covers officials directly—it’s that the law carves out explicit refusal rights for one group based on “sincere belief,” and there’s nothing in the text stopping courts from extending that logic to the next one. that’s not misinformation. that’s a prediction. and you still haven’t shown it’s false.
calling someone a fascist because they quoted a law correctly and drew a conclusion you don’t like isn’t an argument. it’s a tantrum and your unhinged response is proof of it. you’re so busy screaming “bullshit” that you never actually proved it’s bullshit.
so no, i wasn’t wrong and you’re still pretending the fire isn’t real because the match hasn’t been entered into evidence.
tantrums don’t help anything.