Religious Liberty
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 бер 2018
- An argument against a particular idea or concept.
The Concept: If your religion differs from the law of your country, that law does not apply to you.
Advocates: Christian Conservatives
The Argument: Allowing certain citizens to abstain from the law negates the purpose of having laws.
Advocates' Fault: Scant understanding of civics.
Mike Huckabee's Speech: • Gov. Mike Huckabee spe...
MSNBC Interview: • Mike Huckabee: Marriag...
ABC News: • Mike Huckabee: Supreme...
Tweet: / counterarguing
Post: / counterarguments
Buy: teespring.com/stores/countera...
Donate: www.paypal.me/counterarguments
Email: countertheargument@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This video is an amended/re-uploaded version.
Original: • Video
A response to a rebuttal was published on this channel.
Comment Response: • Religious Liberty (Com...
Is this a re-upload?
Yes, it is. The original video was never monetized due to a copyright claim and a failed dispute. This video was not only amended to avoid a copyright claim, but also had its audio/visual quality improved and contains an alternate hidden clip at the end.
It's not hidden now 😏
Hey, counter-arguments I was wondering if you ever heard of the Knife Media, this is completely unrelated to the video but I thought you would like this media. The Knife Media trips news of bias so it's just the news, rates news sources so you know what to believe and shows the spin so you're never misled again. I was wondering what were your thoughts on them and if by any chance collaborating on a video. Like something for Sensationalism or walking contradictions. Not telling you what to do just seuggestion. Love your videos by the way :)
You could submit the clips at the end as their own video, that way your videos are less likely to get demonetized.
Merhaba
you know no one is going to read this pinned comment and still comment asking about it. this is the internet afterall.
If you have a conscientious objection to your work you quit, no one is making a vegan work at a slaughterhouse.
Exactly!
I mean this doesn't effect me in any way. I'm not religious and I don't really plan on getting married.
But I think the issues about this which didn't do right with me is the fact that marriage is fundamentally a religious tradition. I don't really feel like the state has any say over that. I always felt like if they wanted to include gay partnerships they should create a separate ceremony purely state run which produces the same outcomes as marriage.
But as you say, she could just quit. I agree to some extent but don't think it's particularly fair, especially in contrast to the example you gave. She signed up for the job believing that the Christian view of marriage would be upheld and in my opinion that's a fairly reasonable assumption to have. She didn't sign up to do something that contradicts her beliefs. The counterexample to yours would be that a vegan would never sign up to work in a slaughterhouse. They may, however work in a vegetable processing plant which, overnight, gets turned into a meat processing plant. A little more extreme but the consequences are essentially the same. Overnight, the jobs they did changed and combatted their core beliefs.
So yes, why didn't she just quit? Well as I'm aware, the incident happened on the same day the law was passed. You can't easily walk out of a job on the same day for a variety of reasons. Most jobs require notice if you're planning on quitting, especially if you want to look good to future employers. I also wouldn't be surprised if she'd been doing that job for quite a long time and I don't think it's something that would be easy to give up overnight. If some time had passed for her to be made aware of the law and she still chose to do the job then maybe I would be more sceptical.
dampo4 “marriage is fundamentally a religious tradition” This is blatantly false, and the crux of your argument. The concept of marriage long outdates Abrahamic religions. Even disregarding this, If marriage was a purely religious tradition, it (marriage licenses) would not be issued by the government, because the government is by construction secular. Therefore, marriage in America, by virtue of being issued by the government, a secular institution, is a secular practice. Do some research before pulling arguments out of your ass.
@@abhisarma7249 ahh yes, the intellectuals of the UA-cam comment section
@@kieran6201 I think you're view would be more applicable if a gay couple went to a religious group to get married. Marriage today has 2 parts, legal and, in some cases, a religious covenant. The catholic church for example does not acknowledge divorce, and will only annul a marriage in extreme circumstances. A catholic however after legally divorcing can remarry any number of times legally in countries that have a separation of church and state such as Canada and the USA.
The USA was founded upon the separation of church and state - the religious incorporations to the currency and pledge of allegiance occured within the last 100 years, despite the use being founded far longer than that. When founding the USA, the founding fathers wanted freedom of and from religion and the only way to do that is not endorse any religious ideas in legislation. A person who works as a public official or works providing a public service is a representative of the government, and so they have an obligation to separate their personal views, whether religious or otherwise, from their professional actions so that they can best provide public service.
If she knew that she could not separate her religious views from her professional actions, then she should have quit or asked her boss to be transferred somewhere else where she would not be in a conflict of interest such as issuing business licenses. She was unable to provide a public service because her religious views were in the way of her professional duties, which is what is the problem, and so OP's original statement is highly applicable as it comes fro. Th same vein.
Separation of church and state, don't have a state job if it contradicts your beliefs.
Negative Zero Separation of church and state isn't a thing. Stop using it
Alexander
U sure about that mate?
You might want to read the first amendment again. It pretty clearly contradicts you.
Alexander "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The actual language of the first amendment and the nature of the establishment clause itself indicates a separation of church and state. No law RESPECTING. That means religious beliefs are not considered when the laws are made and enforced. The laws do not respect religion. They should not interact in any way.
Negative Zero A fucking men
Mike: if your religion objects against a law you do not have to follow it
Isis: really umm yay
*as long as that religion is Christianity
@@sungod9797 *Protestant
@@redsoldier7220 Protestant is still a form of Christianity
@Danilo Alves You replied to a 2 year old comment, I don't even remember the context it was sent in.
@Danilo Alves False equivalency. Typical tactic of a religious moron
County clerks who want to deny the law based on religious objections should be excused... from their occupation.
You are correct, but remember that sentiment must carry over to sanctuary cities and states as well.
Absolutely, if sanctuary cities and states refuse to do their jobs by not deporting people who have crossed the border illegally they should be held to account for this neglect.
Agreed on both points.
Should churches be sued for not agreeing to Gay marriage?
Ruben Costa yes. If churches are going to continue to be afforded many of the same capacities as government bodies that the people aren’t afforded- not paying taxes, evading certain social responsibilities, statute laws and common law precedence, special protections, etc - then they necessarily must be held to the same standards as the actual governing bodies. The other choice is to forfeit those special capacities in exchange for having the same rights as a corporation, which is considered to be essentially a person.
The whole problem with this entire situation is that we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. It should be made clear that legal marage and religious marage are, and should be, separate. A religious leader shouldn't be forced to carry out religious marage between homosexuals and the government shouldn't be able to reject a homosexual couple getting a legal marage license.
Aharon Yosef Baer well it mostly because her position is elected office in public institution thus is legally bound to fulfils obligations of that office. She issues marriage license thus she is obligated to issue the licenses in accordance with the law. By not doing obligated to either resign or face legal repercussions which in this case was going to jail. It kinda like when people are given the option of either paying a fine or spending some time in jail. She obvious went to latter case so she went to jail simply as that.
Marriage
@@baertheblader9402 I think you don't actually know the complete set of events, as she wasn't actually forced to issue the licence as far as I know, she was sent to jail because when the case went to court the judge ordered that the license should be issued by a member of the office. She could have delegated the signing of the licences if she really felt it was her religious belief, but that she could not prevent as a agent of the state prevent the issuing of the licenses. She likely would have only been reprimanded if she after receiving that court order just delegated the responsibility of issuing the licenses to someone else. I was her refusal to even do that, that made the court order her to be jailed for defying a court order. Defying orders of the court is a jail-able offense. She was jailed because she defied the court order that the clerk office issue the license.
I just think we should do away with governmental marriage all together, and you should get tax benefits from raising children in your home, because that's the whole reason married people get tax breaks, it's so they can have families so if your a straight or gay or whatever relationship you want, unless you are raising children, no tax break.
@@maddyosa7338 ah, good point
Religious liberty applies to service when you're running your own business. If you don't wanna bake a cake, supply flowers, cater, etc a gay wedding, then yeah, sure, religious liberty. They have no right to the services and products of a private business and you can turn away customers for reasons religious or otherwise.
When you're a government employee, you are not running a private business. You are a public servant, and you are bound by duty to provide people with any service they are constitutionally entitled to. Their taxes cover your paycheck, you don't get to go "naw my beliefs you don't get documentation for your union."
I would agree, and say that if your conscience bothers you for doing something within government then that job isn't for you, and you should try finding another career path. If I had to do something within the government that went against my moral convictions I would just quit my job.
Literally the best take on religious liberty. Working as a public servant is not a right, it's privilege granted to you as long as you're obeying the rules. Whether she should be jailed or just fired is a whole another matter, but could a firefighter be jailed if he didn't run into a flaming house?
@@KundelX No firefighters refuse to go in flaming houses all the time. especially if its a fire fighting company in smaller regions.
Couldn’t that just lead to segregation as certain buisnesses turn away certain people It coul dturn back into segregation where certain groups get inferior treatment from buisnesses.
Agreed.
Do a counter-arguments on one of your own counter arguments!
gud idea
This
Holy shit
Don't joke about this
You know the world would end if this happened
Then a counter argument on that argument
Counter-ception
TFW you're expected to do your job.
“I’d get someone with a JOB, and he’d do it, because it’s his JOB, to do that JOB!” - Spongebob Squarepants
That background music is freakin' epic
I think it's victory from Two Steps From Hell.
Nah man, its kinda...Goofy.
TheGoldenRabbit
Heart of Courage by Two Steps From Hell
If this was the actual music played on stage, I hope TSFH sued the shit out of them.
it is
Am I the only one who noticed his freudian slip at 1:52?
We've come here 'togay'
Yeah, I chuckled at the unintentional irony.
lol wouldnt have noticed
That's not how Freudian slips work.
Its a normal slip of tongue.
"When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"
Good quote
Brilliant video. I studied formal logic for years and was fully aware of this issue, however you've gone and made the video I wanted to make 😂
You're one of my favourite UA-camrs.
I found it hilarious when politician is speaking about conscience. As if he had any.
It's fuckin beautiful
idk if i should take someone with a naruto profile picture and name serious here
Political people has no soul or conchenc kil all dem@
I'd like to see your take on Cultural Appropriation.
That is very unlikely. This channel has VERY Left-leaning arguments. Cultural Appropriation is a Left issue.
@@Matthew-Anthony I mean they defended count dankula to an extent( if I remember correctly)
@@Matthew-Anthony what about the black people cant be racist thing. Or islmaphobia, or hate speech. Saying "very left leaning" is extremely disingenuous
@@Matthew-Anthony What? I'm a conservative and I love this guy's videos.
Matthew Cioffi VERY left-leaning? No. Just no. That isn’t an accurate depiction.
It is so strange how some people insist on taking away the rights of others, be it to not be hurt, be it to live a life on there own terms etc. To then cry that their rights are taken away when society stops them from doing so, or just demands that they stop doing it.
If you do not agree with the work your employer demands you to do... quit and go for another job. This is especcially true, when you are working for the state. You may disagree as much as you want on a law, you may take all legal steps that might lead to a change of the law. But breaking it is not an option as a representative of a state. No state can ever allow this from happening without damaging its own legal ground.
This isn't a rights issue. The law that was enacted says that gay couples may apply for a marriage license. There is no law that says you have every right to be married under any circumstance. No Rabbi will perform a Jewish wedding for a Christian couple just because they feel like it. No law compels this person to do so. Just like this woman refused to issue a marriage license. Yes, she was being a dick but at no time did she break any laws. If anything she would just go through a regular disciplinary process as per policy and procedure of the branch she's working at. But jail, for this shit? This is what happens when you class people together and enforce the law unequally based on "victim status".
oODonutsOo hm... maybe I have to read more about this. I just applied my german view point on this, and in Germany her denying the marriage license as an state official for what ever reason, but especcially for religiouse reasons would zave earned her a sever punishment, for 1. Not doing the job she is payed for (state officials have tons of benefits, thus punishment for refusing to do the work is sever) 2. for denying the peoples right to get a marriage license (in germany only the license from the states office is considered sufficient and you cannot choose to go to another office, religiouse rituals do not count as a legal marriage here) 3. For disrepecting the law she has sworn to respect and protect. 4. for trying to break the law on church state seperation, by holding her believes laws in higher regard then the states laws, while working for the state.
So... maybe she did nothing illegal in the US, that I don't know, I just assumed, that she did, for her being send to jail, which is the most sever punishment you can get in Germany. Maybe I was wrong, I really can't tell. I heard voices that say, as a state official she had not the right to refuse, which she would have had if she were a church official that refused to marry the couple.
Still my point stands, that I do not think, that religious freedom gives anyone the right to try and take away the rights of others. And that I find it pretty ridiculouse, when people first try to infringe the rights of others, and then cry out loud when being stopped from doing so. Pls note that I hold that true for i.e. antifa people trying to beat up a rascist and then go to jail for it while crying, that they were just protecting society, and this is unjust. Or cry police violence when the officers drag them away from their victim. I make no diffrence here, regardless who the person is, that violates the laws, and regardless how much sympathy I might have with the cause.
I agree with you 100% and I will go beyond religious beliefs and include any belief system and say they [beliefs] have no power above the law and never should.
I firmly believe that the law is the ultimate governing standard of citizens and should be applied equally to ALL. She can be held accountable for her actions under discrimination laws but not giving the marriage license is not the crime here, the discrimination is. And she deserves equitable punishment for that.
As a state official she does have the right to refuse but her reasons for refusal were discriminatory and not due to guidelines applied to issuing a marriage license which is in essence a contract and not much more. The religious part to marriage is purely ceremonial and is outside of the scope of a marriage contract.
So maybe she went to prison for discrimination? Have you read the aper on it? Are these things even public in the US? In Germany they are, so that everyone can read how the judges ruled. This is part of our transparency laws.
Concerning the seperation of believes and law: here isone exception of the rule, that is the right to debate, to run for office, propose laws and to vote and (and afaik this is true for te US as well) drag a current law before the high court (which would be either the Court called "Bundesverfassungsgericht" (Unions Constitutional Court) or the European High Court here) if you beliefe it is unjust. Thus is the way how it must be done, if you find the laws are not just and good.
@@o0Donuts0o so you say i should obbey random people interpreting the law (or making it) over god?
“Why aren’t you issuing marriage licenses today?”
“Because...I’m not”
What a comeback
atheists are retarded such as bread boi here a very good example of a fucked up child!
That’s such a Kareny move. It’s the kind of answer your parent gives you when you ask them something that they don’t wanna talk about
Jfc, it's not like we're interfering in your life, marriage license lady. People like her are the same people who are absolutely outraged when the shoe is on the other foot.
Hannah Fcolvin like muslims
Chell In a Shell *Hardcore and impulsive religious/ideological people
Chell In a Shell To be fair, unlike Muslims, Christians in the US do not face widespread, constant persecution for their religion. Despite what some of them may try to lead one to believe. Christians have the benefit of being a majority and with that comes a certain level of privilege. Cool for them, sucks for many others...like Muslims.
Weltall8000 well look at Muslim majority countries
They're barbaric and well pretty shitty....when people criticize Islam it's for the better
Islam needs to be reformed like Christianity was as in
Stop killing people who aren't Muslim or disagree/refuse to believe in Islam
Weltall8000 and I know not all Muslims aren't violent
But their holy book tells them to be violent
And since Muslim majority governments are a theocracy (govern by religion) you can tell alot just by looking at their laws
I freaking love this channel! Even when you bring up points that come into conflict with my values. It's actually really refreshing to have a logical breakdown and be forced to reckon with logical discrepancies.
This issue always has been a good Litmus test.
If someone seriously advocates for government employees being allowed to refuse to service someone based on their own religious believes, that person is being intellectually dishonest.
Bonus points if the same person still sees a problem in Muslims refusing to follow western laws.
This is exactly the reason why people are scared of people putting the Sharia over Secular laws and for good reason.
"Refusing service" is not always "breaking the law" though. I don't have a "human right" to drink alcohol, so I don't get to sue someone who refuses to sell me a bottle of wine - whether they refuse to because I'm drunk or I'm under-aged or they ran out or they're being a jerk, whatever.
I'm gonna argue the woman in question did not break any law - she just refused to do her job. Maybe she should be reprimanded, maybe she should get fired, who knows. But here's a kicker - she's not The Marriage Giver, the one and only person alive who has the right to sign that marriage certificate. If the law states "gay people have the right to marry", it doesn't mean "people have the duty to sign a marriage certificate when asked". She had such a duty, yes, but again, it wasn't a duty under law, it was under her job description.
Also, I'm disappointed the video made the whole "kidnapping virgins" argument to prove how religious freedom could hypothetically lead to tyranny, yet didn't mention at all that the opposite is equally possible. A hypothetical law that made it legal to kill certain people is just as bad. Morality (whose source is religion or at least some kind of supernatural belief) and law must keep each other in balance. And yes, unlike the video's hypothetical "religious tyranny" that doesn't exist, killing unborn babies is very much legal and often government-funded. So yeah...
eworm
I agree for the most part with you. But 2 things with your statement:
1.) Morality is not always, nor automatically correct in assuming, based in Religion or supernatural belief. It is more often, fundamentally, based in empathy.
2.) Abortion does not equal killing unborn babies. Pro-choice is not Pro-Murder. (personally i follow the 15 week rule. But i do not believe abortion is immoral, nor should be made illegal).
@Malus I believe Muslims should be allowed into the country but will have to follow what ever is the law of the land as the Quran states it doesn't matter if it is haram for a person but if the law requires it you must do it, as long as you're living under a land with specific laws they must be followed no exceptions.
But let's say Muslims didn't want to follow this law they have a few options
1. Move to another country with laws of your liking
2.a.Hold PEACEFUL protest and get your word out to the people about your difficulty and therein help them convince to
2.b. vote for a governor/president who is in favour of Islamic laws or stand peacefully against those who are enforcing laws against your beliefs
3. Conquer the country and remove democracy and establish a Islamic state where only Islamic laws are followed.
But a Muslim or anyone shouldn't be discriminated against as long as they're following the laws of the land
I think that people should be able to deny service to people based on their religious beliefs so long as they are not working in the public sector (which should be free of _all_ religion). If a priest refuses to marry you because you are a divorcee, that doesn't mean you cannot get married, it just means you have to find another priest.
@@violet-trash That is fair but that still doesn't mean that whoever does that is exempt from the relevant consequences of their actions. For instance, if it was company policy to allow all applicants of whatever, who fit the legal requirements and some employee were to deny applicants based on race, religion, or their own conscience; that employee can still be reprimanded or dismissed if the company wishes to do so
Huckabee vs. UA-camr..... Annnnd it takes about two seconds to discover the victor. Fascinating.
It's the UA-camr. I realize my original statement is ambiguous.
You can edit comments
I realised when you said 'Hucka'
What kinda dumbass has 'Huck' as the first part of his name? Depends on the youtuber in the end.
But it's CLOSE.
@Philippe Demptos Most have been kidnapped and indoctrinated by Buzzfeed
Huckabee won.
I think the main issue is that nobody wants to get involved in the process of law.
And there's no scripture that says you can't issue marriage certificates to people you morally object to.
It would be one thing if it was your private business that issued certificates and they could go somewhere else. I think businesses should be allowed to discriminate and suffer the penalty of that discrimination in a free trade market.
But since marriage licences are issued by the state, she's not authorizing their marriage on behalf of herself. She's doing so on behalf of her state.
This isn't what the Power Rangers fought and died for.
Jeromy Perez the issue happens is when ALL business do it. Look the 60s with colored signs and etc.
Yeah that would be a problem. But you do realize that that's also how a lot of black businesses got started and why we saw such huge income mobility during an era that should have been bad for black people.
That's how free trade works. And you could even argue that tolerant black owners that competed cheaper than white owners were able to bridge the gap with white people willing to pay cheaper at a black , non segregated store.
Making Segregation compulsory (as some areas did) versus voluntary (free trade) are two totally different things as well.
As a Christian who understands the position of the woman in the video while disagreeing with her method of action, I agree with you here. If the law changes to where I'm not going to be able to work for the government and perform my job with a clear conscience, then I need to find a new job. I should not be forced to do something against my conscience when it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, but when my job goes against my conscience, I can't just sue my employers when my conscience differs from law. Responsibilities must be fulfilled and if I'm not willing to do it, I should give my employer the chance to find someone who will and save everyone a lot of trouble.
"That's how free trade works. And you could even argue that tolerant black owners that competed cheaper than white owners were able to bridge the gap with white people willing to pay cheaper at a black , non segregated store"
History shows otherwise...the bigots in power did everything they could to keep ethnic minorities down and would use th elaw to their advantage if they couldnt institute a malicious hate-inspired law to do it. This is why the civil rights movement got started.
Just because you are a business owner doesnt excuse you from the law any more than it does a politician; in other words not at all. Furthermore the economy was never intended to be an unrestrained beast. History shows a unregulated market harms everyone but those who are rich. Anyone arguing for a totally free economy should see what happened with the great depression and how it got started, or even the gilded age for that matter. Or even the last 30 years of american economics. Furthermore another look at the past shows that a government who doesnt regulate the economy and keep the rich under a watchful eye soon becomes allied with, or even controlled by the rich as seen with almost every politician since Reagan or (at the risk of Godwin's Law) at Hitler's germany and mussolini's italy. Both gave massive tax breaks to corporations and they made goods for the third reich, not caring of the people they inadvertantly harmed and no one was able to complain without being killed by the folks in charge of the government. Hell these companies instituted slave labor practices just to shore their rofits further and shirked responssibility in workplace safety.
Free markets dont look so good now, do they?
Jarred Emanuel you do realize all businesses did it because it was the law, right?
I love how Mike Huckabee is talking about his freedom being taken away, and then he praised someone who refused to give people a marriage license.
100% hypocrisy
This is such an underrated channel! Love your videos. :)
Wait, aren't you that wich turning men into pigs?
Oh that? That was just a PR stunt. My main hobbies include taking long walks and reading poetry. And to be fair, I don't just turn men into pigs, you haven't seen what I do to women who disrespect me. keke.
Didn't have three children from some sailor guy? I mean damn you look young for 3 kids.
Why thank you! We evil witches don't age you see. :) And we maintain our youth by eating our children. What about the three children again?
Well, sweetie, got any good recipes? I enjoy a little tender child on the plate myself on occasion.
That’s a good take. She shouldn’t be forced to sign the certificates if her religion doesn’t support it, but if her job required her to do something against her religion, she should have resigned. And she should be let go if she refuses to perform her duties based on religious reasons. Yeah, it sucks for her because she’s just following her conscience, but those people have rights too.
Lol, literally right after the speech a burger king ad started playing xD
That heroic background music 😂
As a Sanatani and a Canadian and a libertarian, I find it mind boggling that separation of church and state is still a matter of debate in the US of all places.
AH! I'm stuck in a time loop!
Lol i like how you played The Archangel by Three Steps from Hell during Huckabee's speech.
I'm an Indian-American living in the Bay Area, California. I am a Constitutional Centrist and I agree with Counter Arguments here.
How did I just today, just now, find your channel? Absolutely brilliant
Good counter argument. However, isn’t it a straw doll? What if a Quaker refused to create a deed for a slave in 1848 Philadelphia? What if the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property? Wait. They did. The Supreme Court has clearly used their power of interpretation (which they assumed for themselves, by the way, since it wasn’t in the Constitution) to interpret law so that it is EFFECTIVELY a new law. Roe vs. Wade is the epitome. Also, the Judicial Branch can be ignored by the other branches. After a ruling by the court, for example, Andrew Jackson said, “Let them enforce it.” I think the clerk should have resigned, but Huckabee’s argument that the court creates law is legitimate, especially if the basis is explicitly not in the Constitution. If the legislation is A and the court chooses B, they have overruled A and made B the law. The court has made law.
They can do this, but also it can be overruled, they are not robots; they are humans.
Example below ----V
"If you saw a fish you would rule it to be a fish, but if you touched it, and it was a plushie you would change your ruling of before."
Ah, my two of my favorite things: intellectual analysis and Ska.
The remix at the end killed me
I've watched the original several times, but I see this version has ads, so I'll watch again because its great and you deserve some revenue from your work on it.
The irony is that the Supreme Court does make "laws". It's called case law, and it's kind of an important deal for anyone who is going into law to understand.
“I refuse to live one day under the Tyranny of other people loving another person!”
Its not love its lust
@@JK-lq4mt imagine replying to an 8 month old comment with 8 likes just to be like 'yeah im homophobic'
@@JK-lq4mt lol
@@JK-lq4mt It's not heavenly love, it's narcissism.
@@jackbartlett4402 Am not homofobic i dont hate anyone I love everyone but i am aginst their sin. The same way your parents love you but they are against certain behaviors. The same way God is and the same way I try to be.
so subtle yet amazing when your words sync up with Huckabee's
Im not even mad that you didn't mention that this was a reupload in the title your awesome bro :)
The SCOTUS decision was that the Constitution already inherently implied 'gay marriage' was legal (no discrimination clauses in several amendments [mostly 14th I believe off the top of my head]) thus no law specifically allowing gay marriage was necessary.
Kim Davis, as a government employee, did not have the right to refuse service for any reason (acting as a representative of the government), thus her personal objections were irrelevant.
'State law' could not ban a right granted by the Constitution (what the SCOTUS had decided it DID grant [the role of the SCOTUS]) so state objections were irrelevant.
Huckabee's failure to understand political law (or blatant manipulation of facts to support His narrative ) made him look like a hero to people who lacked understanding and absolutely stupid to those who had paid attention in high school and had critical thinking skills.
Interviews with Huckabee (as shown in this video) illustrate that he was willing to use any tactic possible to try and get a hall-pass from the law, thus pretty nearly proving he understood what happened perfectly and that he had lost, but hoped to look like a martyr in the eyes of those who did not have the time or knowledge to look into the facts regarding a topic they were already biased against.
If only I could like the video more than once.
The background music is freaking EPIC XD LOL
I definitely agree with the Supreme Court that a baker shouldn’t have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, but should have to serve them like a birthday cake or supplies.
Never unimpressed with the ending edits!
I’m upset that the smartest guy on UA-cam has left... ☹️
I really like your channel and the concept behind it! Keep up the good work!
Greetings from Germany :)
I’m always rewatching your videos and I usually glance while I’m working. I just now noticed the “conscious objection” sync at 10:45
I read the 14th amendment to look at the content that the justices wouldve examined. There is nothing in there stating getting married is a right. I think what the judges did was automatically assume that getting married equaled a liberty or privilege under law. Idk if there is a law stating that the law is required to allow everyone to be married if they wish. If so, them fair enough I suppose. But the judge(s) assumed a liberty was in place where as far as I know there wasn't. I believe that's what that candidate meant by "making up laws". He meant that they are extending definitions of law and stretching their jurisdiction. Also when a woman refuses to do something because her religious beliefs prevent her from doing so, as long as that doesnt harm someone, she shouldn't be kept from doing so. Instead she should be forced to step down from her job or whatever position she is in. But this video also runs into the problem of assuming that marriage is a freedom/liberty to be taken away from someone as opposed to someone else's religious liberty, which does extend to anything as long as it doesnt break the law or harm others, but Congress and state legislators have the obligation of making sure their laws dont favor either way on the practices or lack thereof in religion. In other words they cant make laws that require you to participate or not in religious affairs. And if they make laws that would knowingly prevent people's religious practice, they are to be held liable for that violation of Constitutional law. And the Judicial branch is responsible for catching any mishaps like that that slip through. But this video also claims that the Supreme Court didnt necessarily not do their job. Except if they grossly misinterpret it, then they are at the very least accomplishing the exact opposite of the purpose of their job. Also this video makes its arguments based on claims from one man and he claims that others make the same exact arguments. Except theres not really any proof of others expressing those views other than the candidate in question stating his own views. So you based your argument on anecdotes, associated it with a lot of people disagreeing with the law or judgement in question, and then took it down while still assuming marriage is a right or liberty or privilege under the law in the first place
While I don't agree with the man I believe your counterargument could have been put better. You misrepresent what he says and conflate his argument of what the current laws are and what he would like to enact. One is an argument that the jailing was wrong based on current laws. The other, which was in a different context, was that he believes you shouldn't force her to do it. Very different.
Lol the end of your videos is always the cherry on top. Cracks me up almost every time
You've changed my mind. Thank you.
Everytime you upload, or in this case re-upload, a video without a Monty Python reference, I die a bit inside.
I'm like 90% sure this is re-uploaded. Was the original video demonetized or something?
Yes, due to some music at the end
*THIS BACKGROUND MUSIC IS FREAKIN' EPIC* lol
This background music freakin' epic, that's just priceless
People who don’t do their job out of conscience should find a new profession
There’s something that you gloss over a couple of times that would have been important to discuss. “The free exercise thereof” is talking about action, not just belief. The freedom to the latter without the former is a moot freedom-and it’s not as if the government could even theoretically punish someone for an unexpressed belief, anyway. You could just as easily turn around the statement around 12:00 and say, “If God’s law plays second fiddle to U.S. law, then why have God’s law at all?” It makes it meaningless in exactly the same way.
That being said, I agree (even as a Christian) that she should have resigned if she was unwilling to issue marriage licenses. I think the free exercise clause only applies to laws that are made with the intent of banning religious practices, not laws made for other reasons that happen to contradict someone’s religious beliefs.
“The background music was FREAKIN’ EPIC”
Wow that background music was freakin' epic
Don't think I've heard counter arguments raise his voice or get emotional good on him dude.
Im Catholic and I agree with you. The government should remain secular so no one group gets oppressed by another. You use “Christian Conservative” very broadly because there are a lot of those and they aren’t all like that. As long as gay marriage isn’t forced into churches, I don’t care. Honestly I don’t understand why a lot of Catholics got angry over this since governmental marriage is just a legal bond and not actual spiritual marriage. It really doesn’t matter.
Americanism is a heresy condemned by Pope Leo XIII. If you support or are indifferent to separation of Church and State, you're not Catholic.
@@punz0934 guess I'm with Ulysses than.
@@punz0934 also popes arent really that trustworthy. One held a mock trial for a dead pope by digging the dead pope out his grave and having trial and painting him as bad. Another literally killed his subjects and had constant parties. And the corruption of the church in the middle ages was insane. Having power to start wars in the name of religion was insane and having the king fear you is crazy. I rather have it stick as a religion and not as a state of power. For example: Leo X, originally Giovanni de’ Medici, (born December 11, 1475, Florence[Italy]-died December 1, 1521, Rome), one of the leading Renaissance popes (reigned 1513-21). He made Rome a cultural centre and a political power, but he depleted the papal treasury, and, by failing to take the developing Reformation seriously, he contributed to the dissolution of the Western church. Leo also excommunicated Martin Luther in 1521.
@@MiloTheCrotonian That has nothing to do with the papal declaration on Americanism...
@@punz0934 just saying that no one needs to listen to a pope.
13:00 "It's alright, see, I'm tensed! You can't hurt me." "HHURGG"
THIS BACKGROUND MUSIC IS FREAKIN' EPIC
Your faith shouldn't get in the way of your job. A person like that should be fired.
This is true, but this not what the argument is about.
Rather this argument is about the faith getting in the way of the law, and vice verse.
This lady does not want to marry 2 specific people as it is disallowed in her faith. Should she be forced to do anything that takes away her personal freedom to practice her religious ceremonies, this case being marriage of a man & woman, this is unconstitutional by the 1st amendment.
Though she should be fired from her job, but she shouldn't be jailed as it is within her constitutional right to do this.
@@icarusunited finally someone, who understands it
Could you cover issues on Right To Privacy / Right To Be Forgotten - with all the FaceBook scandals in the news lately?
An important thing to note here is that she could legally refuse to sign the license, but since she is an elected officials she would also have to resign since she didn't do her job. Since she refused to resign she was jailed.
If this was a private business, owned by her, then she would absolutely be able to not sign the licenses without legal issue.
Fantastic! Congratulations on the amazing video and down to earth argumentation.
Honestly, this is one of the best channels, and an excellent video. While I definitely agree that same-sex marriage is wrong, a lot of people confuse 'separation of church and state' with 'the state should cave to the church'. What most don't realize is that, even Biblically, the government is there to protect all people, even if they go about it the wrong way. I definitely would stand behind the idea that, if you aren't comfortable with what you have to do somewhere, and it violates your conscience, by all means, stand up for what you believe in - in other words, don't bite the hand that feeds you. Do I think she should have gone to jail? On a surface level, no, I don't believe so. Then again, I am not fully knowledgeable about the situation, so I can't really make a decision on what I think was right or wrong. It's a very tough balance to strike - religious convictions versus law, but simply put, if you don't like something, yes, you can stand up against it. But don't complain about a part of your job if you don't want to do it, while you are still claiming to be a part of that job. If it violates your morals/ethics/etc, you shouldn't be there.
Well put.
My religion doesn't believe in paying taxes, sooo i guess i don't have to pay them. I have a Conscientious objection to paying taxes
Thanks for this video. I’m an Aussie and the USA’s political arena is a bit different from ours. Now I’m informed.
“Plays the Star-Spangled Banner on the bass” hahahaha
1:50
"I think we gathered here to be gay"
1) I think Davis was wrong and hyperbolic.
2) I know it's a different standards, different case, but want to see people force Muslim-owned bakeries to have a cake with Muhammad *to prove a point*.
3) Also want to see concealed carry reciprocity *to prove a point*
The music when she's released......I cannot stop laughing
14:23 The song at the end is so fun 😂
Also, excellent video and very logical analysis. Well done
Your liberty ends where another one's begins.
It's not that hard to get.
but religious conservatives are egocentrics.
I would genuinely like for somebody to explain to me why Joe Schmoe down the street marrying another man takes away your religious liberty.
Near as I can tell, the only thing being taken away is your right to dictate how someone else lives their life.
Very well done sir!
Just because law is a LAW, doesn't make it moral or ethical.
"We gather here tod..togay"
Homophobes are kinda obsessed huh
Why didn't you address the Conscientious Objector argument?
Because a Conscientious Objector is free to do so. And when they do so, they must get out of the way of society. For example, I can be a Conscientious Objector to the consumption of alcohol. This does not mean that I am free to get a job as a bartender, and then refuse to serve anyone alcohol because I object.
My objection can be valid to me, and I can exercise that in my life. It doesn't mean that I can get a job that runs against my values and then hold things up.
If she really, truly has a moral issue with any of this, then she can get a job somewhere else, doing something else. She has that freedom. The problem is that she is stomping on the legal freedoms of others, ignoring the law, and taking the attitude that she is above the law.
You don't know what you're talking about. A conscientious Objector in the military is still allowed to serve and cannot be expelled from the military for their beliefs, or jailed for not following an order to fight the enemy. That is the entire point. A C.O. cannot be fired from their government job. The Supreme Court has ruled on this time and time again. She was a C.O. and should have been treated as such.
Komninos Maraslidis Conscientious Objectors have been drafted and have volunteered to serve. We even have CO's who won the Medal of Honor. Soldiers are government employees, that is where a comparison can be made. Please do some research before entering this argument.
Oh you meant those who object to killing, while I meant mostly those who object to the military scam and drafting in the first place.
You still do not prove how they are similar to this woman. Allowed to "serve" is not really what happens in a draft. She wasn't drafted, she was elected and hired essentially. She could object her conscientious ass all the way to her home (or church). She just had no reason staying there and obstructing the rights of other lawful people because she and her religion are hate-mongering anachronisms.
We're not talking about a draft, there is no more draft. Conscientious Objectors exist TODAY in our ALL-VOLUNTEER military. Some object not only to killing, but to touching weapons of any kind or assisting in the death of any human, even the enemy, or touching pigs, or harming another of their own faith, or they think a certain war is unjust or immoral, etc, etc, etc. Now how can that be?? Why are they not kicked out or jailed for not following orders??? Because the Supreme Court has upheld that a person's deeply held convictions are sacrosanct and that as long as "reasonable accomodations" can be met, you cannot remove someone from public service for their refusal to violate their beliefs. Even if they volunteer for the job! Again, we're not talking about a draft!!
So, if a soldier won't touch a weapon, they can still be a soldier, but won't be expected to fight. If a soldier objects to the war in Iraq, they can be deployed somewhere else, and if a county clerk won't put her name on a gay marriage certificate, her staff can just sign the gay ones (which is what they ended up doing anyway!) and she can do all the other things a county clerk does, which is 99.9% of the job.
She just didn't want her name on a gay marriage certificate which blatantly violates her religion and was illegal for her entire life. The same way a Conscientious Objector in the military does not want to violate their religion either. I have a sneaking suspicion if she was Muslim, liberals would be on her side... you libs would telling us to be culturally sensitive and make a reasonable accommodation. Maybe you're only calling her a hatemonger because she is Christian? Yeah, pretty sure no one would have said that shit if she was Muslim.
What's the song on the background at 2:00?
The point that no one seems to bring up in this debate is that the Founding Fathers did foresee the need for limits on rights. They included a little thing called Amendment IX, which states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In modern language, your rights (and mine any anyone else’s) are limited by the fact that they can’t be used to infringe on the rights of others.
Solution have non religious people let the gay people marry each other so you don’t infringe in someone else’s rights so no one suffers
Ik right. Its really that easy
Is this a re-upload?
Yes
The original couldn’t be monetized because of a clip at the end
Great Show
That background music was indeed epic
As a strong minded atheist I believe that people should always have the freedom to do nothing, no matter what the law says. Yes. A religious cake making shop should be allowed to not make a cake for an occasion which they believe supporting could land them in hell for the next millennia. No law should force people to DO something. Accept someone’s application, stand for the national anthem, no. People should have the right to do nothing. That is conscientious objection. Preventing somebody from doing something is one thing, forcing somebody to do something is another.
The thing when you're working you'll always have rules to follow and obligations to fulfill, should a baker go to jail because he doesn't want to serve some clients based on his religious beliefs ? Not really, should he be fired ? Yes because if his beliefs makes it so he can't properly do his job maybe he shouldn't work there
Also she can't really be compared to a religious cake making shop (btw wouldn't change anything if you ask me), he job has nothing to do with religion but with law
This it why I wish “Marriage” was changed to “Civil Union.” Y’all can do what you want from a religious aspect, but please stop telling people that they are lesser due to seemingly random aspects of their DNA.
Maurice Pete
Maybe this is me playing devil’s advocate but some people are lesser than others due to their DNA...you wouldn’t say someone with Down-Syndrome for example is on an equal level to someone able-bodied...does it mean we should treat them differently?...no, but to say they are the same as others is downright disingenuous, some people are just natural unlucky...
@@guilhermedalmolinpereira7812You're comparing a sexual orientation to a genetic disorder.
Senan M
No shit Sherlock
@@guilhermedalmolinpereira7812 we talk about laws and rights so it is absolutely fucking clear that equal is to be seen in context. And in context before law we are mostly equal.
@@guilhermedalmolinpereira7812 lesser is really shitty to say. Turns out someone genetically disadvantaged could turn out better than you. Maybe you end up a mess after getting a meth addiction. Who knows. Maybe the other kid is forest Gump.
Reggae starts playing
(Starts bobbing my head)
man good job that was a really good video put together!
He's not ENTIRELY wrong. Just because he would make different arguments based on the branch of government... of course you would, because the purpose of those branches is different. He's explaining why each branch shouldn't be doing this. That's fair, he's allowed to have that opinion. And I do actually agree with him on being against the Supreme Court decision.
Also, this could easily have been solved by saying "Government employees must do X. You can do it, or you can lose your job." Why should a private organization be obligated to marry ANYONE? I'm fine with the government recognizing it... and public servants being fired for refusing. But jail?! Come on.
So does this mean you're against ALL forms of conscientious objections?
FIRST! (always wanted to do that)
Easily becoming my favourite channel
How much do we have to rewatch for it to count?
You’re framing the whole question wrong. What is Marriage?
One definition is the mixing of two unlike materials to create a stronger 3rd material. So, combine copper with tin and you get bronze, carbon with iron you get steel… Another is that it is a contract between two individuals (male and female) and God to create a family.
With that in mind you should not call a state sanctioned joining of two individuals (no matter what their gender) a marriage, because it doesn't fit the definition of the word! According to the Supreme Court it’s only fair that we mix iron with iron to get steel, or copper with copper to get bronze.
By stepping into the question of the definition of marriage as the Supreme Court did, they highlighted a flaw in our legal system wherein a religious right of passage is now (and has been for a long time) legislated by the government in violation of the 1st amendment. This has created a problem in that now the Supreme Court has to either force organized religions to comply with their dictates (in effect making the Supreme Court the defacto state religion) or they must find a way to back away from their previous ruling.
Bottom line, let the government record who joins (commits) to whom for legal reasons, but don’t call it a marriage and don’t allow any laws to be made regarding it.
exactly- the term had a clear. legal definition. One single, willing female of age and one single willing male of age and not too close a relationship. Already, polygamists are accepted in court and they are looking into incest, and they are starting up the same 'but they love each other' stories for Minority Attracted People (pedophiles)
I would say that the legalisation of gay marriage is about expanding that definition, because it has been found lacking in a modern environment.
Personally I'm of the opinion that arguing over "man and woman" is pedantic at best, since marriage is essentially written to be a legal bond between two people that keeps them insured with one another in a way similar to familial relations. Who cares if they love each other? Let two heterosexual men get married if it's convenient for their purposes.
this is why church need to be separated from state.
If I refused to do my job I probably wouldn't go to jail, but I would definitely be fired.
This background music is freakin' epic!