That doesn’t stop over half the states in the union from legislating mandatory waiting periods before a woman can undergo a constitutionally-guaranteed medical procedure of course.
I’m still of the STFU and GBTW school of thought.
How about if a fire department won’t extinguish the flames of the home cohabitated by a same-sex couple because every fire fighter wants a religious exemption?
If every clerk did this, we wouldn’t be having a problem, would we? In reality gay couples are being turned away.
There has been anti-Semitism for most of the past 2000 years also, but that doesn’t excuse some fundamentalist clerk from not giving me a marriage license since we are all going to burn in hell for not loving Jesus.
If Pete has problems (and his boss has given him a couple of weeks to think it over) giving marriage licences to SS couples AND he courteously excuses himself saying he has to go to the bathroom or whatever, and he gets Anne to issue it, the SS couple should show grace and patience on the guy who, while disagreeing with the law (or even being a motherfucking bigot), has not prevented them in any meaningful way in excercising their rights.
In your scenario, there is no awareness on the part of the couple that would challenge their grace or patience.
So, okay. Gay people should be patient with the everyday workings of an office environment. Doesn’t seem like a remarkable position to give voice to in the first place.
If Pete has some sort of indigestion or has the runs and has to hit the bathroom, or if Pete has a recognizable handicap that his coworkers have agreed to cover for, I’ve got no problem. Covering up for bigotry? Big problem. Adding to the workload of others and making U.S. citizens stand in another line for some bogus reason? Big problem. Come back to me when the rules say that “Bigotry” is now one of the things offices must make accommodations for, and we’ll talk.
Let’s say that the SS couple know that Pete has moral problems with SSM (maybe they saw Pete in an anti-SSM march) and know the excuse to be false, instead of yelling “bigot” they accept it and get their licence.
Pete isn’t being paid by the state to judge whether or not they deserve their license-the state has already judged that they deserve to get their license. At this point in time it is Pete’s job, while holding any opinion he damn well pleases, to issue them the license the state has already said they qualify for. If Pete does not issue them the license the state says they qualify for, he is defying the wishes of the couple, and the direct order of the state.
Which should not be surprising since the decision is not enforceable for 25 days after it is delivered. Some places are going to hold out “for good” as long as they can.
I don’t think I ever asserted that they should as we’ve been talking more about the clerks. But if they do have to suffer the indignity of being handed off to the OK-With-SSM clerk, realize that this is all going to be over in a few months and those Not-OK-With-SSM clerks are on their way out.
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.
You have a cite for this? I’ve heard it bantered about, from the people who don’t want to issue licenses. I haven’t heard it from the Supreme Court, or any other competent authority.
First of all, I didn’t say it doesn’t hurt anybody and no one is penalized. I said no one’s civil rights were being violated. That is not the same thing.
I did say that their bosses (or maybe their co-workers) might have to pick up the slack for them to make things operate smoothly during the transition. That’s not something a boss is going to want to make permanent.
I work in a 9-1-1 center. The public has a right to be served by our office.
But we sometimes serve certain members of the public slower - not because of the seriousness (or lack thereof) of the report, but rather due to a language barrier.
So does my not speaking French, Polish, Tagalog, and Farsi mean I am rebuking my callers? I think not. Sometimes a minimal delay is acceptable, or at least not actionable.
The reality is the high court has considered de minimis delays (up to about 15 minutes) to be acceptable in things like traffic stops. I somehow doubt a similar minimal delay (Clerk says he is stepping aside while his supervisor processes this SSM license application) would be actionable.
That is where the 25 day figure comes in. It does not explicitly state that judgements do not go into effect in that time, but logic dictates that the passing of that 25 day mark gives a certain finality to a judgement.
OK, I did say it didn’t penalize anyone. That was a mistake. I was probably thinking too narrowly, in that “anyone” = “anyone applying for a marriage license”.
It would be a good cite, except it doesn’t say anything a all about a stay of the decision. It’s a deadline for an appeal.
Similarly, anyone convicted of a crime has a limited time in which to file an appeal. There is no provision which grants that the sentence must not be started until the appeal is filed. A judge might choose to grant a stay in those circumstance, but it’s not a given.