# Religious liberty of public employee vs. same-sex marriage rights. How to reconcile? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 30, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876 "2015-06-30T16:35:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/341 "2015-07-03T01:26:55Z")
Regarding clerks, I would be a LOT more sympathetic if I had any reason to believe that they held an actual religious belief that signing paperwork for gay people was wrong. But I just don’t believe it. I don’t believe that the specific objection to processing gay marriage paperwork is religious in origin. I think it comes from a desire to hurt gay people, and I have zero sympathy for that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/342 "2015-07-03T01:30:37Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > You have said you believe that, in the wake of _Obergefell_, same-sex couples should not expect to get marriage licenses. i did? The only thing I can think of that I said along those lines is that, by law, municipalities still have 25 days before they have to comply, so it should not be surprising if some gays are being turned away. That’s simply a fact because of the way our legal system works, and has nothing to do with my own opinion on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/343 "2015-07-03T01:55:40Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Now, are there any other absolutely fucking asinine assertions you need debunked, or are you done wasting everyone’s time here? Nah. i’m fine with you finally posting actual evidence after 188 posts since the issue was raised. I don’t find either your specific examples or your straw man argument persuasive, but at least you have bothered to make the effort, finally. I have never said that no one has ever used the word bigot in the context of this discussion, so that straw man is silly. What I posted was that it has not been a major element of the mainstream media’s presentation. References to homophobia and intolerance are not the same as an accusation of bigotry. They get to the same place, but in a way that does not make the specific accusation. So a large number of your references don’t meet your claim that calling people bigots actually moved the process forward. For that matter, the actual accusations of bigotry all seem to have occurred within the last three years, or so, long after the tide had begun to swing toward acceptance of SSM. For that matter, few of the citations you have provided are actually in media that the majority of people would encounter–a specific point I have made throughout this discussion. I suspect that Slate and similar outlets are read by 80% of the members of this board and far fewer than 1% of the country. I would guess that the majority of changes in opinion had nothing to do with accusations of bigotry as people simply saw more positive images of homosexuals in the media. Obviously, you will not agree. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/344 "2015-07-03T01:56:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I wasn’t giving that advice, so… whatever. You seemed completely unaware of the context of the comment, so I tried to explain. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/345 "2015-07-03T02:04:23Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You do get that the couple get their licence without delay? > > Otherwise, it’s nice to see, again, the face of tolerance, I’m taking notes. It reminds me of never conceding or accomodating at all because anything less than 100% is Stalin; that’d show me. Intolerance of bigotry upsets you? Tough. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/346 "2015-07-03T02:14:34Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I have never said that no one has ever used the word bigot in the context of this discussion, so that straw man is silly. What I posted was that it has not been a major element of the mainstream media’s presentation. References to homophobia and intolerance are not the same as an accusation of bigotry. They get to the same place, but in a way that does not make the specific accusation. So a large number of your references don’t meet your claim that calling people bigots actually moved the process forward. Wait, so in order to show what you demand, people have to show that a newspaper (for example) called homophobia “bigotry”? And it can’t have been within the last three years? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/347 "2015-07-03T03:02:40Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nah. i’m fine with you finally posting actual evidence after 188 posts since the issue was raised. > > I don’t find either your specific examples or your straw man argument persuasive, but at least you have bothered to make the effort, finally. I guess that’s a “no” on my question, then. > [@](#): > > I have never said that no one has ever used the word bigot in the context of this discussion, so that straw man is silly. What I posted was that it has not been a major element of the mainstream media’s presentation. References to homophobia and intolerance are not the same as an accusation of bigotry. Fucking unreal. **tom** , _homophobia is bigotry._ That’s what the word _means._ Besides which, of the twenty links I posted, more than half use the word “bigot,” “hate,” or “Hitler” to describe opposition to gay rights. So, great job paying attention, there. Again. > [@](#): > > They get to the same place, but in a way that does not make the specific accusation. So a large number of your references don’t meet your claim that calling people bigots actually moved the process forward. My links weren’t meant to demonstrate that calling people bigots, or hateful, or similar epithets works. It was to demonstrate that it _happens_, regularly, and at all levels of the discussion. > [@](#): > > For that matter, the actual accusations of bigotry all seem to have occurred within the last three years, or so, long after the tide had begun to swing toward acceptance of SSM. Jesus, nice backpedal there, **tom**. You want to think real hard and maybe figure out why Google results would tend to favor recent news and events? Last three years my ass. ACT UP was founded in 1987, and those were the guys that popularized the pink fucking triangle as a symbol of gay rights. That’s a direct link between anti-gay bigotry and the god-damned Nazis, and it’s been going on for nearly _forty years._ > [@](#): > > For that matter, few of the citations you have provided are actually in media that the majority of people would encounter–a specific point I have made throughout this discussion. I suspect that Slate and similar outlets are read by 80% of the members of this board and far fewer than 1% of the country. Right, your “gay rallies don’t count!” caveat. I ignored that, because it was fucking stupid. When several thousand 'mos show up at a rally, and listen to the people get up on stage and talk about bigotry, about fighting against hatred and oppression, you don’t think they’re internalizing that message? You don’t think they’re incorporating those ideas into their personal interactions with people outside of the gay rights movement? This is how gay people have framed the debate for our rights since the beginning. This is how we’ve talked about it among ourselves, and this is how we’ve presented it to the rest of the world. _And it’s fucking working._ > [@](#): > > I would guess that the majority of changes in opinion had nothing to do with accusations of bigotry as people simply saw more positive images of homosexuals in the media. > > Obviously, you will not agree. Yeah, it’s a perk of not having spent the last quarter century in a coma. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/348 "2015-07-03T03:45:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Intolerance of bigotry upsets you? > Tough. People still feel that intolerance of intolerance is some kind of character flaw or hypocrisy? Unreal. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/349 "2015-07-03T03:51:42Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > People still feel that intolerance of intolerance is some kind of character flaw or hypocrisy? Unreal. Is it your contention that it cannot ever be? Because THAT would be unreal. ---
**Author:** ![Reads\_a\_Lot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a9a28c/32.png) [@Reads\_a\_Lot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reads_a_Lot)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/350 "2015-07-03T04:02:19Z")
It’s a moot point. If you are a civil servant working for the government, it has been ruled that under the equal protection of the 14th amendment, that all adults wishing to marry another consenting adult can do so. That’s the law. It is part of your job. If you can’t do that, quit. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/351 "2015-07-03T04:44:55Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Regarding clerks, I would be a LOT more sympathetic if I had any reason to believe that they held an actual religious belief that signing paperwork for gay people was wrong. But I just don’t believe it. I don’t believe that the specific objection to processing gay marriage paperwork is religious in origin. **I think it comes from a desire to hurt gay people** , and I have zero sympathy for that. What evidence do you have for that assertion? ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/352 "2015-07-03T05:03:17Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > if gay couples are experiencing no delays and no rebukes, to whom are you asserting they should show grace and patience? Are Grace and Patience the couple getting married? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/353 "2015-07-03T08:46:21Z")
> [@Reads\_a\_Lot](#): > > It’s a moot point. If you are a civil servant working for the government, it has been ruled that under the equal protection of the 14th amendment, that all adults wishing to marry another consenting adult can do so. That’s the law. It is part of your job. If you can’t do that, quit. Well, the issue is that there is ALSO a law that says even if you’re a civil servant working for the government, your religious practices are entitled to a special deference. So the question is: how do those two laws interact with one another? I agree that on balance, civil servants will have to supply all couples with marriage licenses, but I do not agree that there is only one law to be analyzed in reaching that conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/354 "2015-07-03T09:41:06Z")
> [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](#): > > I haven’t read the whole thread, but I believe the correct response is “The gay marriage people should get what they want, and the religious people should go piss up a rope”. Do I win a prize or anything? Or as sensible people might phrase it: “The gay marriage people should have their Constitutional rights respected as recently affirmed by the highest court in the land, and the religious people should either follow the law and do their job or find another job they have no objections to performing.” Ropes and the pissing up thereof are not germane to the discussion, and Constitutional rights are not just what people “want”, it’s what they _have_. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > The eyes have been on this particular “Prize” for a damn long time and this particular “Prize” has already been awarded by the SCOTUS. Sorry, but when it comes to same-sex marriage, the “Prize” is _claimed_. “Yeah, I know you won this trophy fair and square but as a Christian engraver I feel it would go against my principles to put your name on this so I’m just going to hold onto it. Soz.” > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > People still feel that intolerance of intolerance is some kind of character flaw or hypocrisy? Unreal. I give you Supreme Court Justice Alito: > [@](#): > > Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. > > The decision will also have other important consequences. **It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.** In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. > > Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/355 "2015-07-03T10:23:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, the issue is that there is ALSO a law that says even if you’re a civil servant working for the government, your religious practices are entitled to a special deference. > > So the question is: how do those two laws interact with one another? > > I agree that on balance, civil servants will have to supply all couples with marriage licenses, but I do not agree that there is only one law to be analyzed in reaching that conclusion. Indeed, but a legal protection for “religious practice” is simply irrelevant when the job simply involves confirming a set of legal requirements have been met and appropriate administrative procedures followed. It is not as if the clerks concerned are being required to enter into a marriage their religion forbids, nor in any way confer their personal approval or that of their religion on the marriages of the people they deal with. Their religious practice is in no way affected. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/356 "2015-07-03T10:49:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t want to keep defending the bigots but we make reasonable accomodations for all sorts of religious beliefs, why draw the line here? We make reasonable accommodations for free speech, too. But there are still some forms of speech that are not protected by the Constitution (1st Amendment), Yelling “Fire!!!” in a movie theater, and all that. It can be a grey area… do we let certain religious persons wear a head covering for a driver’s license photo, even though no one else is allowed to? Maybe we do. It can be a tough call. In my opinion–enacting a law that allows certain religious people to wear head coverings in a driver’s license photo is not the same as allowing people to discriminate, because of their personal religious beliefs, against lawful candidates for marriage. Let people wear a head covering in a picture? Really doesn’t hurt anyone. Let people decline a legal marriage certificate to others? Unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![kayT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayt/32/3633_2.png) [@kayT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayT)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/357 "2015-07-03T11:29:28Z")
It seems that drawing the line for religious exceptions is difficult. A simple way to avoid this would be to make no exceptions for religion. I don’t understand why this is never considered. This country claims to believe in treating people equally; why don’t we? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/358 "2015-07-03T12:12:45Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > What evidence do you have for that assertion? It’s not an assertion. But thus far I haven’t seen any of the folks complaining present evidence to lead us to believe otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/359 "2015-07-03T15:59:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > i did? The only thing I can think of that I said along those lines is that, by law, municipalities still have 25 days before they have to comply, so it should not be surprising if some gays are being turned away. You said that clerks cannot be expected to give people licenses. You said that hours if not days before the (questionable) 25 days thing came up. Technically “clerks can’t be expected to give couples licenses” and “couples can’t expect to get licenses” aren’t the same sentence, but unless you’re proposing the couples in question vault the counter, that’s the nittiest of picking. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2015, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/360 "2015-07-03T16:14:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > i did? The only thing I can think of that I said along those lines is that, by law, municipalities still have 25 days before they have to comply, so it should not be surprising if some gays are being turned away. That’s simply a fact because of the way our legal system works, and has nothing to do with my own opinion on the matter. Well, now that you’ve been shown that that is absolutely not true(that they have that much time to file an appeal, not to start to comply), does this change your mind in any way? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876.md?page=19)