# 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:** 24
**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 11, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/461 "2015-07-11T21:48:39Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > I think the problem I’m having understanding this is that I’m with **JRDelerious** in seeing it as a binary. What’s 99% of the way between refusing to issue a license and issuing one? 99 correct licenses, and the 100th is invalid. Surprise! ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/462 "2015-07-12T00:43:23Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > There’s a quote attributed to comedian Dick Gregory on the “go slow” approach, along the lines of “Get your foot off my Grandmother’s neck! Now, goddamit, not one toe at a time!” > > I appreciate that it takes time for people to adjust their attitudes. But it is unjust to ask the victims of injustice to tolerate further injustice purely for the sake of sparing their persecutors’ feelings. That is a ludicrous position, particularly as this change has already been a long time coming. > > Gay people have a Constitutional right to get married. Period. We are not requiring the bigots to be happy about it, but neither are we permitting them to withhold that right from anyone for one second longer. To do otherwise is to condone that injustice. But it’s bigots who want to impose their beliefs complaining about other bigots that makes this discussion son nice? I wonder if you would’ve called people bigots for issuing licences to SS couples if SCOTUS had said no to SSM. No even conceding a tiny window (25 days) where customers still get their legal right is pretty much A1 bigotry and intolerance. It also shows people that trying to find even the slightest common ground with intolerants who change their tune once they are on the “winning” side is uselss. > [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > Denial of a Constitutional right is actually worse than being called names (which is why I’m really starting to dislike the word “offended”). > > I think the problem I’m having understanding this is that I’m with **JRDelerious** in seeing it as a binary. What’s 99% of the way between refusing to issue a license and issuing one? 99% means this (aka option B): Peter-Paul McPapist is a Clerk and his job is to issue marriage licences. He’s spoken to his manager about taking a couple of weeks to see how he feels about issuing licences to SS couples, and if he sees he cannot do it, he’ll resign. In the meantime, every time an SS couple comes, he treats them nicely, excuses himself courteously and someone else issues it without any noticeable delay. Peter-Paul has also accepted to take extra work to make up for inconveniencing his co-workers. Even this, extremely unlikely as it is, has been called bigotry and, hence, my 99% is 0% > [@jsgoddess](#): > > 99 correct licenses, and the 100th is invalid. Surprise! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/463 "2015-07-12T01:02:24Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > . . . I wonder if you would’ve called people bigots for issuing licences to SS couples if SCOTUS had said no to SSM. . . . Of course not. Why would that be bigotry? “I’d like a marriage license, please.” “Sure, here you go. Fill out this form, and the fee is $35. Just exactly the same as it is for everyone else.” Ooh, rampant bigotry. ---
**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 12, 2015, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/464 "2015-07-12T06:27:06Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > 99 correct licenses, and the 100th is invalid. Surprise! Jay-Z’s first draft? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/465 "2015-07-12T06:52:22Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Of course not. Why would that be bigotry? > > “I’d like a marriage license, please.” > “Sure, here you go. Fill out this form, and the fee is $35. Just exactly the same as it is for everyone else.” > > Ooh, rampant bigotry. > [@Dennis](#): > > Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I’m being repressed! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/466 "2015-07-12T14:09:53Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I wonder if you would’ve called people bigots for issuing licences to SS couples if SCOTUS had said no to SSM. I think I’m going to have to Inigo Montoya that last bit. That’s not what bigotry means. If you believe that nobody should be excluded and go ahead and continue to issue licenses equally in spite of a ruling against ME, you would have been in one of two situations: a) if you were in a state that already had legislated or ruled at state level that ME was in effect, you’re continuing to conduct business as usual b) if you were in a state challenging ME and where therefore it was now again forbidden, you’d be acting ultra vires wherebt the licenses would be invalid, and/or engaging in civil disobedience. But you would not be exercising “bigotry”. I am willing to buy that demanding that anyone expressing any reservations about the issue be compelled to obey or fired _on the spot_ RIGHT NOW with zero discussion or opportunity to transition the office’s operations could be seen as itself intolerant, even if justified based on that there is no requirement to be tolerant of that which is wrongful – but being a hardliner about right and wrong is not _per se_ the same thing as bigotry. It can be how one\* expresses\* bigotry, when there’s a bigoted notion of right/wrong. The problem is, nobody believes HIMSELF to be a bigot. Everyone believes him/herself to just be holding on to _“the line’s drawn HERE”_ as to what is right or wrong for some reason that in his or her head is justified. (Hint: when it comes to civil legal transactions, “the Bible says so” is not a good justification.) ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/467 "2015-07-12T14:44:32Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > I think the problem I’m having understanding this is that I’m with **JRDelerious** in seeing it as a binary. What’s 99% of the way between refusing to issue a license and issuing one? Clarification: in my example the binary was the recognition of marriage itself. **Ají** ’s position AFAICT is whether “the license is issued, but it is arranged for someone else to do the processing” is a \*“close enough?” \*alternative. And people keep messing up my vanity searches. One of these days I’ll have to do a MPSIMS thread as to what’s the deal with that second “e” ;)😛 ---
**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 12, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/468 "2015-07-12T16:22:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Jay-Z’s first draft? Oh, there’s definitely a bitch involved. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/469 "2015-07-12T16:28:59Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Of course not. Why would that be bigotry? > > “I’d like a marriage license, please.” > “Sure, here you go. Fill out this form, and the fee is $35. Just exactly the same as it is for everyone else.” > > Ooh, rampant bigotry. Don’t you understand!!! Gay marriage ITSELF is bigotry against all righteous Bible-believing Christians!!!1!eleventy! (Please tell me I don’t actually need some kind of /irony or /wingnut tag for that…) ---
**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 12, 2015, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/470 "2015-07-12T18:18:39Z")
The very fact that clerks are considered interchangeable implies that it’s not the clerk’s personal endorsement that’s relevant here. If Clerk Fred refuses but Clerk Sylvia issuing a license is considered just as good, it clearly doesn’t hinge on what Fred or Sylvia actually think about the couple. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/471 "2015-07-12T18:35:29Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I wonder if you would’ve called people bigots for issuing licences to SS couples if SCOTUS had said no to SSM. That’s a really goofy sentence. Doing something against the rules to further equality is hardly bigotry. ---
**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 12, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/472 "2015-07-12T21:54:07Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s a really goofy sentence. > > Doing something against the rules to further equality is hardly bigotry. That “Hating bigotry _is_ bigotry!” crap got old years ago. ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2015, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/473 "2015-07-12T22:21:34Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > IANAL, but doesn’t the ruling itself imply that sexual orientation is protected, despite Kennedy once again contorting himself to avoid actually dropping orientation into a given level of scrutiny? I don’t see anything making that the case. The closest precedent I can think of would be Bob Jones University vs. United States, but that simply said that Bob Jones University would lose its tax exempt status for discriminating against those in interracial relationships because the Court saw eradicating racial discrimination in education as a compelling state interest. I don’t see sexual orientation being a protected class until it is actually written into law through the legislature. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2015, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/474 "2015-07-13T03:52:12Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > The very fact that clerks are considered interchangeable implies that it’s not the clerk’s personal endorsement that’s relevant here. If Clerk Fred refuses but Clerk Sylvia issuing a license is considered just as good, it clearly doesn’t hinge on what Fred or Sylvia actually think about the couple. So we can agree that Fred is better tan Anne who shoots all SS couples wanting a licence, don’t we? > [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s a really goofy sentence. > > Doing something against the rules to further equality is hardly bigotry. I’ve been told repeatedly here that clerks should have no mind, no opinion, no values; just follow the rules or go home because they are faceless replaceable cogs and their job is to mindlessly follow the law. Who defines bigotry in the case of public officials doing their jobs? Should public officials be fired if they want to impose their views on others, regardless of their righteousness? ---
**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 13, 2015, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/475 "2015-07-13T04:35:22Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So we can agree that Fred is better tan Anne who shoots all SS couples wanting a licence, don’t we? Wait, who’s Anne named for? No one is proposing allowing the clerks to do that, unless you are and I missed a post. The _de facto_ positions are, give the licenses to couples who meet the requirements, or give the licenses to different-sex couples who meet the requirements. Even when phrased that way I really don’t see the latter as 99% of the former _vis-a-vis_ same-sex marriage. [QUOTE=Ají de Gallina] I’ve been told repeatedly here that clerks should have no mind, no opinion, no values; just follow the rules or go home because they are faceless replaceable cogs and their job is to mindlessly follow the law. Who defines bigotry in the case of public officials doing their jobs? Should public officials be fired if they want to impose their views on others, regardless of their righteousness? [/QUOTE] I think that, if they’re following the law, they are not “imposing their views” even if the law happens to reflect those views. But prior to the _Obergefell_ ruling, I wouldn’t have supported a clerk who issued licenses to otherwise qualified same-sex couples in a state that did not provide for same-sex marriages, except to the extent that they were trying to create a test case; I certainly wouldn’t have said “it’s the right thing to do, so it doesn’t matter what the law says.” ---
**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 13, 2015, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/476 "2015-07-13T05:13:52Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’ve been told repeatedly here that clerks should have no mind, no opinion, no values; just follow the rules or go home because they are faceless replaceable cogs and their job is to mindlessly follow the law. You have _never_ been told this, or anything _close_ to this. ---
**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 13, 2015, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/477 "2015-07-13T13:40:03Z")
If that’s not what I said, it is denotatively what I meant to say. (Not so much connotatively, because I don’t mean it as a dig.) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/478 "2015-07-13T14:04:16Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > There’s a quote attributed to comedian Dick Gregory on the “go slow” approach, along the lines of “Get your foot off my Grandmother’s neck! Now, goddamit, not one toe at a time!” > > I appreciate that it takes time for people to adjust their attitudes. But it is unjust to ask the victims of injustice to tolerate further injustice purely for the sake of sparing their persecutors’ feelings. That is a ludicrous position, particularly as this change has already been a long time coming. > > Gay people have a Constitutional right to get married. Period. We are not requiring the bigots to be happy about it, but neither are we permitting them to withhold that right from anyone for one second longer. To do otherwise is to condone that injustice. The flaw in that analogy is that you are saying your rights are superior to the rights of the religious bigots and the law does not see things that way yet. This is not merely gay rights against bigotry. this is gay rights against religious rights. Gay rights are going to win this eventually but it will take a while. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2015, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/479 "2015-07-13T14:08:03Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > IANAL, but doesn’t the ruling itself imply that sexual orientation is protected, despite Kennedy once again contorting himself to avoid actually dropping orientation into a given level of scrutiny? Protected classes are usually created by the legislature not the court. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2015, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876/480 "2015-07-13T14:12:11Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > I think I’m going to have to Inigo Montoya that last bit. That’s not what bigotry means. > > If you believe that nobody should be excluded and go ahead and continue to issue licenses equally in spite of a ruling against ME, you would have been in one of two situations: > a) if you were in a state that already had legislated or ruled at state level that ME was in effect, you’re continuing to conduct business as usual > b) if you were in a state challenging ME and where therefore it was now again forbidden, you’d be acting ultra vires wherebt the licenses would be invalid, and/or engaging in civil disobedience. > But you would not be exercising “bigotry”. > > I am willing to buy that demanding that anyone expressing any reservations about the issue be compelled to obey or fired _on the spot_ RIGHT NOW with zero discussion or opportunity to transition the office’s operations could be seen as itself intolerant, even if justified based on that there is no requirement to be tolerant of that which is wrongful – but being a hardliner about right and wrong is not _per se_ the same thing as bigotry. It can be how one\* expresses\* bigotry, when there’s a bigoted notion of right/wrong. > > The problem is, nobody believes HIMSELF to be a bigot. Everyone believes him/herself to just be holding on to _“the line’s drawn HERE”_ as to what is right or wrong for some reason that in his or her head is justified. (Hint: when it comes to civil legal transactions, “the Bible says so” is not a good justification.) (Hint: “the bible says so” might be good enough, I’m not saying that this is my preferred state but religious freedom is in the constitution in a way that gaay rights is not.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-liberty-of-public-employee-vs-same-sex-marriage-rights-how-to-reconcile/723876.md?page=25)