Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Nope, perfectly accurate as it applies to both your analogy and the Davis case.

Everyone who scores below X on the LSAT is not admitted to law school = they are all being treated equally

Everyone who wants a bacon cake is not sold one by a Jewish bakery = they are all being treated equally.

Gays who want a marriage license in Kentucky are not issued one because the clerk only issues to heterosexual customers due to her misguided belief = they are not being treated equally.

 

Much more credible than your belief that you are smart.

 

Boooooooooooo ...

 

↑
If I refused to, say, sell a gun to a convicted felon, am I a bigot?
You're adhering to the law.
↑
It affects her standing with her God when she is the one issuing the license to make it possible.
So what?

Arguably the most bigoted post on this thread.

 

They are being treated equally because they take the same test.

Everyone who scores X or higher is admitted. Everyone who scores below that is not. They are all being treated equally under the criteria given.

(I don't know the whole law school application process, and whether or not they use more criteria than just the LSAT score. I'm just applying DQ's analogy of the LSAT score to this discussion)

 

If she were issuing opposite-sex marriage licenses, you'd have a point. She stopped issuing ANY marriage licenses. She's treating both gay and straight the same. Isn't that what you want?

 

She said she was a sinner until she found Jesus four years ago, and she now has newfound devotion to the teachings of the Bible. Given that we know she did not hold the same beliefs regarding marriage prior to finding Jesus (hence, her three divorces), I'm curious if she would have granted a homosexual couple a marriage license five years ago. If she would not have granted the marriage licenses before she found Jesus and her devotion to the teachings of the Bible, can we then fairly say that her use of Christianity to defend her actions is nothing more than a convenient way to shroud her bigotry under the vestments of religion?

There's no way for any of to know if she would have granted the licenses before she found Jesus, so I guess it's a moot point, but it seems that's the only way she could fall into your category of someone who is not a bigot, just someone who devoutly follows their sincerely held religious belief.

 

Incorrect.

 

There were people who truly, sincerely believed that white people are genetically, mentally and emotionally better than black people (probably still are). They sincerely believe that the two races should not be mixed or their children should not be taught with black children or that black people don't have the mental capacity to fly fighter jets. They had "science" to back them up. They had their upbringing to back them up. And they were bigots. It's the same thing here. She may in her heart-of-hearts believe that homosexuals marrying is the greatest sin ever, but it still makes her a bigot. Gay marriage is doing nothing to harm her in any way shape or form. Gay marriage is not stopping her from being a Christian. She swore to uphold the law and for reasons that have no effect on her, her family or her church, she won't uphold the law. That makes her a bigot.

 

You're disobeying Rule No. 2

How to Hashtag - Don't Abuse the Hashtag!

 

Even though the LSAT isn't the only thing looked at in admissions, let's stipulate arguendo* that it is (it's a huge part of the admissions decision, for sure). You surely don't think that everyone is treated equally under the admissions criteria.


*Hi 93Devil!

 

This post makes no sense.