Religious liberty of public employee vs. same-sex marriage rights. How to reconcile?

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@John_Mace

Bigot is not a slur. I agree. It’s a pejorative. People don’t like to be called names, whether the name is a slur or not. Do you disagree?

I don’t, denotationally, but that’s irrelevant. I don’t like being told I’m wrong, which is definitely not a slur, but that doesn’t mean it’s impolite to tell me I’m wrong when I am.

@John Mace

What a stupid analogy. Clerks are not throwing marriage licenses in the trash.

You know how analogies work, right? Do you actually not understand how denying a couple a license for which they qualify is analogous to, albeit not identical to, throwing something in the trash? I can spell it out if you need me to.

@John Mace

I, at least, am not arguing that clerks should be allowed to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses long term. I’m only arguing for a grace period, to let them find other jobs. Months, not years.

Should a clerk be allowed to make you wait months for your marriage license because they don’t like your partner?

@opossum

I hope I’m not being naive, but doesn’t making a distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage (however each person’s religion or lack thereof defines it) turn down the heat on this issue significantly?

You’d think so, wouldn’t you.

@opossum

The clerk has no role in solemnizing any marriages in any religion as far as I know. Their job is to check the paperwork, collect the fee, make sure as far as they can tell that neither party is currently married to anybody else, and to ensure that any required medical tests have been performed.

Right. No one seems to be addressing this argument, even to tell me I’m wrong if I am: the clerk is not approving the marriage, they are simply the agent of the state’s approval of it.

@WhyNot

I find it somewhat odd that this “debate” - in all the various permutations I’ve seen over the last couple of days - is so overwhelmingly in favor of “make 'em do their jobs,” when the identical pharmacist debate was/is so much more split among the same audience.

It’s not quite identical because the pharmacist isn’t a dispensing robot. I don’t really like the idea of the pharmacist being allowed to arbitrarily refuse to sell birth control or morning-after pills or medication for menstrual cramps, but a pharmacist is supposed to exercise a certain amount of subjective judgement in some circumstances.

There can be a legitimate reason to not fill a prescription for birth control even if the prescription is valid and payment has been arranged. If a couple meets all the qualifications and pays the fee, there is no legitimate reason to deny them a license, just as there is no legitimate reason for a letter carrier not to deliver a properly addressed Victoria’s Secret catalog if the address exists and Limited paid the postage.

[Valteron]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Yeah, its called a religious exemption. You can’t ignore the religious part of the bigotry, if it was simply bigotry, you could fire them immediately.

Do you realize what an absurd conclusion you have boxed yourself into? If bigotry has a religious part, then it must be taken into consideration? Look at how ridiculous that would sound:

Case 1) Employer: Johnson, it has come to my attention that you refused to issue a marriage licence to a black-white couple. May I ask why?

Johnson: I personally object to a white woman lowering herself and betraying her race by marrying a black man.

Employer: You’re fired!

Case 2) Employer: Smith, it has come to my attention that you refused to issue a marriage licence to a black-white couple. May I ask why?

Smith: It is contrary to the will of God. Kind must cling to kind. The curse of Noah’s son Ham continues upon the black race today.

Employer: Well, since your refusal is based on a sincere religious objection, we will have to find some way to accomodate you.

Case 1A: Johnson (who has just come back into the boss’s office). Boss, I maybe should have mentioned this, but my refusal to issue that marriage licence to an intrerracial couple is based on the truths I have learned in Aryan Nations, the self described White Christian Separatist religious organization founded in the 1970s, as an arm of the Christian Identity organization Church of Jesus Christ–Christian.

Employer: Well, Johnson, your Church has been operating for some 40 years and is a legitimate religion. I may not agree with your church, but your refusal is based on a sincere religious objection, we will have to find some way to accomodate you.

Johnson: What about my cousin Karl? He has also refused to issue licences to black-white couples. But his objection isn’t religious. He’s an atheist. He just hates n****ers.

Employer: Fire his ass!

[Annie-Xmas]

Change “black-white” to “same sex” and you could have the exact same scenarios

[Acsenray]

@WhyNot

Agree.

I find it somewhat odd that this “debate” - in all the various permutations I’ve seen over the last couple of days - is so overwhelmingly in favor of “make 'em do their jobs,” when the identical pharmacist debate was/is so much more split among the same audience.

If you ask me, pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to dispense based on their expertise in pharmacology, because prescribing physicians can and do make mistakes.

However, I don’t like the laws that allow pharmacists to deny birth control or day-after pills based on their personal religious views. I don’t think that should be allowed. After all, access to birth control and abortions is a fundamental right found by the Supreme Court.

[Czarcasm]

@Annie-Xmas

Change “black-white” to “same sex” and you could have the exact same scenarios

I think the problem we’re having in this thread regarding the word “bigot” is that most of the people objecting to SSM are claiming to do so for religious reasons, and this society has been taught to give religious belief more leeway than non-religious belief…even if that religious belief runs counter to our own religious belief.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Acsenray

However, I don’t like the laws that allow pharmacists to deny birth control or day-after pills based on their personal religious views. I don’t think that should be allowed. After all, access to birth control and abortions is a fundamental right found by the Supreme Court.

It’s a right enforceable against the government, yes. It’s not a right enforceable against private entities. If the government’s policy is such that the right of access is effectively curtailed that’s one thing, but as far as I can tell these pharmacists who refuse to dispense BP, etc., on conscience grounds are pretty rare.

That’s not the same situation as we see with abortion, where some counties are hundreds of miles from the nearest abortion provider.

[Acsenray]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It’s a right enforceable against the government, yes. It’s not a right enforceable against private entities. If the government’s policy is such that the right of access is effectively curtailed that’s one thing, but as far as I can tell these pharmacists who refuse to dispense BP, etc., on conscience grounds are pretty rare.

That’s not the same situation as we see with abortion, where some counties are hundreds of miles from the nearest abortion provider.

It’s not as severe a problem, as that with abortion, but that doesn’t change the principal of the matter.

A few months ago, there was a situation in Georgia in which a woman was prescribed an abortion medication for reasons related to her miscarriage, and a pharmacist refused to dispense the medication after concluding something like “I don’t see why you would need that.” That kind of stuff shouldn’t happen.

Here’s the story: http://www.wgxa.tv/news/local/Milledgeville-Pharmacist-Refuses-to-Fill-Prescription-for-Miscarriage-Patient-299421801.html

The doctor's office called the Milledgeville Walmart to fill the prescription but they were told no and they were not given a reason.      

 "So we found another place to fill it but I still had to go up there to get another prescription so when I went up there she asked if I had any questions about this prescription I said no I don't but I do have a question about the other one. And she looks at my name and she says oh, well...I couldn't think of a valid reason why you would need this prescription", Cartrett said.

 The drug in question is Misoprostol, which can also used to induce abortions.

[Voyager]

@tomndebb

I don’t object, per se, to calling bigots “bigots.” Do it where ever you would like.
Of course, name calling is prohibited in this forum, so if you direct your insults toward another poster, you will be Modded.

I meant the more general public forum. No one around here has said anything that would want me to call him or her a bigot.
But you missed my point. While I agree that it is counter-productive to call people uncertain about SSM bigots, or even people who say it makes them uncomfortable bigots, if we don’t call the real bigots what they are, we are in a sense giving a message that what they say is okay. It’s just a matter of opinion. It was perfectly okay to call 1963 vintage George Wallace and Ross Barnett and Orville Fabus bigots. They said things, in public, that earned them the title.

[Voyager]

@Czarcasm

I think the problem we’re having in this thread regarding the word “bigot” is that most of the people objecting to SSM are claiming to do so for religious reasons, and this society has been taught to give religious belief more leeway than non-religious belief…even if that religious belief runs counter to our own religious belief.

And the way we do religious freedom in the US means that even though most religions and religious leaders may reject bigotry (being optimistic here) and the bigotry is based on a misreading of the Bible, the government can’t declare the fervently held belief inoperative.
The “freedom or religion” crowd is trying to extend their freedom to worship to freedom to impose the results of their beliefs on others.

[Kobal2]

@Czarcasm

I really believe you are confusing “respect”, which isn’t given out freely to everybody no matter what and can certainly be denied given the proper circumstances, with “submissiveness” and “passiveness”.

Look, all he’s asking is for y’alls to bend over just a little longer. Which should come naturally for the gay persons people, right ? You guys do it all the time[citation needed] ! Seems hypocritical and inconsiderate not to do it for proper moral neighbour-loving Christians now, doesn’t it ? Why won’t you people turn the other butt cheek ?

[John_Mace]

@Czarcasm

When respect is denied repeated repeatedly, it cannot be expected to be returned freely. What exactly is to be respected when one is legally denied a marriage license? Do you respect the flaunting of the law? Do you respect the bigotry? Tell us exactly what it is we are supposed to respect in this situation.

@Czarcasm

I really believe you are confusing “respect”, which isn’t given out freely to everybody no matter what and can certainly be denied given the proper circumstances, with “submissiveness” and “passiveness”.

Actually, I do believe that a modicum of respect is best given without conditions. Why do you think we don’t torture serial killers?

Again, just to be clear, if I were the supervisor of these clerks, I would tell them in no uncertain terms that I thought they were wrong, and that I wished they would think long and hard about what they are doing. If they raised “Christian objections”, I’d try and explain why this is a “render unto Caesar” situation. And I would not hesitate to fire them. I would just offer them a modicum of respect, and allow them a few months to find a new job. That is all. I would not pat them on the back, or tell them I thought they were right. I would just recognize that we all don’t come to the same conclusion at the same time or by the same process.

[wonky]

@John_Mace

And I would not hesitate to fire them. I would just offer them a modicum of respect, and allow them a few months to find a new job.

I won’t hesitate to fire you. I just won’t do it right away. A pause, if you will.

[Czarcasm]

@John_Mace

Actually, I do believe that a modicum of respect is best given without conditions. Why do you think we don’t torture serial killers?

Again, just to be clear, if I were the supervisor of these clerks, I would tell them in no uncertain terms that I thought they were wrong, and that I wished they would think long and hard about what they are doing. If they raised “Christian objections”, I’d try and explain why this is a “render unto Caesar” situation. And I would not hesitate to fire them. I would just offer them a modicum of respect, and allow them a few months to find a new job. That is all. I would not pat them on the back, or tell them I thought they were right. I would just recognize that we all don’t come to the same conclusion at the same time or by the same process.

When you work for the state and you serve the people, the process is called the courts, and the conclusion is written into the law.

[The_Stainless_Steel_Rat]

I have just finished reading the last several pages and seldom (albeit I have only been contributing to the SDMB on a regualr basis for the past several months) have I seen so many people in Violent Agreement.

I mean, no one seems to be disputing that gays should have the right and privlege to marry, that the machinery of the state should issue the necessary license to gays to allow them to marry, and that those who are ‘standng in the doorway’ can reasonably be termed ‘bigots’. If there is any contributor in this thread who disagrees with those basic principles, I can’t recall seeing them in the last several pages.

The heat seems to be generated by two issues: What to do about clerks who refuse (for religious or other reasons) not to issue licenses, and if the ‘naming and shaming’ of those people who refuse to issue licenses (or object to gay marriage at all) is a good idea or not.

Mountains…meet molehills. The Big Question is done and decided; the squabbles are the table scraps, and while they provide a decent debate meal, and may last for several (lower) court cases and several more years, the FACT of Gay marriage is firm.

That said, I’ll contribute my thoughts on the matter-such as they are and what there is of them (but probably only this once; I have not the stamina or time of some posters to go for hours).

I tend to lean to John Mace’s side of the argument on the clerks. From this I borrow from Abraham Lincoln, who when it came time to instruct Sherman and Grant on how they should treat the surrendered Confederate Armies (this was in April 1865, when the end was in sight). His words, perhaps parphrased by history, were “Let them up easy.” Lincoln did not want, to the best of his ability, to leave the South with a legacy of bitterness and hate, but to bring them back into the Union as brother’s who have erred and been shown the error of their ways. We’ll never know exactly, or how it would have worked out, since Lincoln was killed and the Radical Republicans imposed Reconstruction on the South, and we know how well that came out…

So yes, try to find other jobs or let a clerk who has no religious objections do the gay marriage paperwork until that person can be transferred elsewhere and replaced. Throwing them immediately out of a job only breeds discontent and anger among not only the job-losers but their families/friends/parish members/clubs…etc. and etc. Why bring upon this un-necessary backlash, as long as the licenses are being issued and the clerks unwilling to do the job are beng transferred out as quickly as possible.

I would make one exception; if there is only one clerk in a county with a small population who refuses to do his/her duty, or the person in authoirty in that county orders them not to do it, then they should resign or be fired immediately, because they are blocking the law (I have no idea, I must admit, how many counties are small/poor enough to only have one clerk on duty).

But otherwise, ‘let them up easy’. Why give those who do not like you even more reason to work against your interests?

As for calling a bigot a bigot in public, I can see the temptation and can almost subscribe to it, but in general, based on the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, I tend to disagree. It was the images and pictures showing bigots being bigots that helped turn majority opinion towards the argument for Civil Rights. Film from Little Rock and Selma speaks louder than any name-calling, even today. And the Reverend King did not, to the best of my memory, call his opponents bigots or crackers or whatever (I suspect someone will prove me wrong on this). What he called them was WRONG and they went ahead and proved him correct.

And the same thing will happen to those bigots (Judge Moore and his tame Attorney in Alabama come to mind, since I live here), as things don’t collapse toward Armageddon, as gays marry (and divorce) peacefully and with no more issues than straight couples have, and their words come back to haunt them over the years and decades of the future as history is written. They will become the George Wallace’s and Bull Conner’s of this age.

While calling them names now will only give them the attention and publicity they so desire.

IMHO as always. YMMV.

[Miller]

@John_Mace

What I can’t believe is that I’m engaged with what I consider to be one of the more intelligent posters on this MB who seems to think that name-calling is an effective strategy to win someone over to his side. There are so many obvious contributors to the change in perspective that Americans have had, but it’s hard to imagine being called a bigot was a significant factor, as opposed to:

1. Knowing someone who actually is gay (friend, relative, etc).
2. Increasing exposure to gays in the media
3. Political leaders (mostly on the left, but some on the right) who urge acceptance
4. A critical mass of gays coming out of the closet so they are not some abstraction

Let me ask you straight up (no pun intended): Do you honestly believe that calling people bigots was a significant factor in their changing their minds?

Yes, absolutely, I think calling out homophobia as bigotry and hatred was enormously important to the success of the gay rights movement.

Do I think this script ever worked:

Guy A: I’m against SSM!

Guy B: Fuck you, bigot!

Guy A: You’re right. Rainbow flags for everyone!

No, obviously not. But that’s not what anyone (except, apparently, you and tom) is talking about. We’re not talking about change on the individual level, but on the societal. Calling out anti-gay hate and discrimination shapes the public narrative that these are bad things. “Bigot” is a powerful word, and successfully associating that word with the anti-marriage movement significantly damaged their brand in the public eye. Have very many fifty year olds been convinced to change their homophobic views because society has started branding them bigots? I know for a fact that at least a few have, but more important than that are the fifteen year olds, who are just starting to formulate their opinions and world views, and who are looking at a society that’s increasingly hostile towards anti-gay discrimination. I think that’s absolutely had an effect on the overwhelming acceptance of gay rights among Millenials.

[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?

[wonky]

@Miller

Yes, absolutely, I think calling out homophobia as bigotry and hatred was enormously important to the success of the gay rights movement.

Do I think this script ever worked:

Guy A: I’m against SSM!

Guy B: Fuck you, bigot!

Guy A: You’re right. Rainbow flags for everyone!

No, obviously not. But that’s not what anyone (except, apparently, you and tom) is talking about. We’re not talking about change on the individual level, but on the societal. Calling out anti-gay hate and discrimination shapes the public narrative that these are bad things. “Bigot” is a powerful word, and successfully associating that word with the anti-marriage movement significantly damaged their brand in the public eye. Have very many fifty year olds been convinced to change their homophobic views because society has started branding them bigots? I know for a fact that at least a few have, but more important than that are the fifteen year olds, who are just starting to formulate their opinions and world views, and who are looking at a society that’s increasingly hostile towards anti-gay discrimination. I think that’s absolutely had an effect on the overwhelming acceptance of gay rights among Millenials.

Exactly. You can’t combat bigotry until you identify it. Identifying it but not saying it out loud is pointless.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

John Mace’s post further convince that for too many, tolerance means “wait until I get my turn to ram my ideas down your throat”.

He’s offering the tiniest of accomodations and even that is treated as “yup, let’s burn those fags”. As usual, “tolerance” means it’s either 100% or nothing, 99.99% make you Stalin.

Most people who changed their position on SSM did it because they were convinced by the arguments, not because they were shamed into that. I, while stilled opposed, have moved my position towards avenues that are more gay-friendly because of reflection, not because somebody calling me a bigot gave me a second of thought.

Also, this idea of “simply follow the law, you’re a public servant” means that they have to congratulate all the bus drivers who forced blacks to the back or told them to use another toilet. And if someone 10 years ago wanted to marry a gay couple against the law, they would’ve said “well done, why do you try to impose your ideas”.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

I would very much like to see the reaction of the last series of posters to the occasion in which they go to the DMV to get their license renewed and are told, “No. I will not serve you today because I personally do not like who you are. Come back next week and try again.”

I’m sure they would simply turn and go home, graciously refusing to offend the sensibilities of the clerk.

[Boyo_Jim]

There are still something like 20 counties across the south where gay couples (and in some cases ALL couples) can’t get a marriage license. How long do the clerks need to “adjust”?

There have been couples waiting for years for the right to marry. How are they to be accommodated while the clerks recover from their shock?

Aji, your final paragraph makes no sense at all to me. Can you restate what you’re tring to say?