Have we been shown that? I thought one of our resident lawyers said they didn’t need to comply for 25 days. Maybe I missed the post where that was corrected.
If I did miss such a post, then sure, no one should have been turned away. That still doesn’t change the actual issue which was the false claim that poster made: “You have said you believe that, in the wake of Obergefell, same-sex couples should not expect to get marriage licenses.” I did not say that, except as would be allowed by law if any delay in implenting the ruling were legal. If it’s not, then same-sex couple should expect to get marriage license.
And just to be clear, I’m not expecting us to move heaven and earth (heh!) to accommodate these anti-SSM clerks. I’m sure there will be sometimes when they cannot be readily accommodated and they will need to buck up or quit. I’m guessing, though, that the firing process is not quite so easy as to be able to get rid of folks like this on the spot. But, when reasonably feasible, it would behoove us to do so while they find other employment. And by “behoove us”, I don’t mean we should encode that into law. I just think that if we took steps like that, as a society, we’d all be better off.
I agree that making reasonable accommodation to move these people into roles that do not conflict with their (stupid bigoted) beliefs would be ideal. Of course, such moves should 1) not impinge on the ability of same-sex couples to obtain their marriage licenses in the same timeframe as an opposite-sex couple, and 2) not adversely affect (from a salary or career standpoint) whichever person has to take over for them on desk duty.
As the parenthetical insertion above suggests, however, I think these objections are bullshit and represent post hoc religious rationalizations of ingrained bigotry. The Bible says, in the common interpretation, “Don’t be gay”. It doesn’t say “Don’t serve gays as part of your job”.
I’ve noticed that I’ve never seen any controversies about Mormon employees refusing to issue business licenses to coffee bars and liquor stores. I’ve never seen any controversy about Catholic employees refusing to issue divorce documents marriage licenses for second marriages. I’ve never seen any controversy about Orthodox Jewish mechanics refusing to service buses that run on the Sabbath.
No one is making anyone violate a religious belief by issuing a marriage license. It’s simply a matter of not allowing someone to impose their religious beliefs on someone that does not share them. Pure conservative butthurt and nothing else.
You made this claim way upthread, so it should be on you to certify it.
That said, I’ve looked a lot, and I can’t find anything that justifies it except the statments of a few state officials who are opposed to the decision. Oh, and one of these, (I think the AG of LA) says that there’s no specific language in the decision specifying “immediate” enforcement, the states can draw up their own titmetables for doing so.
Technically there’s a 25 day window to plead for a rehearing before the court. Not gonna happen and it does not stay the ruling. But some officials are holding on to the notion just to salve the butthurtness and make it look to their constituents like they did not just fold. Same with jiggerypokery about waiting for a direct order, they want to be able to say “I did not want to, they made me, I resusted as long as I could” come reelection time.
It is interesting that this is the hill they chose to die on. But it’s probably one of the few issues (together with abortion) in which hardliner Evangelicals/Orthodox Jews/Catholics/Mormons/Muslims/etc can agree is an Important Thing and make common cause. Also for them it’s something of a test as to whether they do still have the power or influence to steer the discourse.
No. When 20,000 people show up at a rally, they are the ones who have already internalized the message. Bigots don’t go to such rallies, so it is rather difficult for them to internalize a message they have never heard. Now, the 20,000 attendees have already internalized the message, but if you think they were going out and calling their neighbors and co-workers bigots and that that was the impetus for the shift in views over the last 20 years, you are definitely engaged in the bubble experience I described earlier.
Just as a (totally non-scientific) poll, today, I asked around at work regarding some of the events you highlighted. I talked to 10 or 11 people who ranged from early 20s to late 50s, with varying levels of education, all of whom would fit the profile “middle class.” No one recalled Alec Baldwin making homophobic comments, (I got one guy arguing that his “crime” was playing an electronic game on an airplane taking off). Only one guy knew that santorum was a slang insult, but he did not know its meaning and only associated the word with the Pennsylvania senator. Not one of them recalled ever encountering the name Dan Savage. The Chik-Fil-A incident was regarded as much ado about nothing.
A couple of them are homophobic. A couple of them are accepting because a niece or nephew or in-law has come out as gay. I don’t know the exact attitudes of each of them; only a couple have ever talked about SSM or homosexuality, previously. None of them appear to have any awareness of things that you believe are widely publicized.
All the information with which you are so familiar was totally outside the life experience of any of them. Even granting the lack of scientific basis for my “poll,” it is hard to imagine that they were some small pocket of people who just coincidentally had never encountered even one of the things on your list. (For that matter, my wife was unaware of any of the points you raised. She thinks homophobia is dumb, but thinks talking about it in any manner is pointless; in her view the people who understand that homosexuality is normal are OK and the people who don’t understand it are too dumb to deal with.)
Anecdotally, I have never encountered a person who was labeled a bigot who changed their opinion, yet over half of the country has changed their views in the last 20 years. ::: shrug :::
The santorum neologism probably has a deeper penetration (ahem) than 10% of the population. For a time it was the first search hit for the top GOP presidential candidate in the 2012 election (and was also the top hit for his name in 2006). Santorum was forced to comment on it in mainstream media on several occasions in 2006, 2008, and 2012.
Do a quarter of the people in your workplace self-identify as liberals?
I bet of you had asked them if they were aware that it was unpopular to display anti homosexual sentiments they would of said yes, they were aware it was unpopular.
Also, that’s what the Constitution says. The government has no business whatever with religion, and government employees may not introduce their faith into their official business.
Which would do nothing to get them to change their opinions regarding SSM. Sure, it is possible to shame people into being polite, (or choosing silence over overt rudeness).
Shaming people into changing their views from opposition to support seems, at best, unlikely and more likely ridiculous. “Oh, gee. If I answer this anonymous opinion poll regarding SSM in the negative, someone on the street who has no idea what answers I gave on the poll and does not even know that I was one of the people approached by Gallup or Pew, might come up and call me a bigot.”
Nah.
We aren’t. I admitted my questions were not scientific and that they were anecdotal. (Calling them hicks, of course, is just you being insulting for no reason. Whatever.)
My point is that when you finally attempted to provide support for your position, you had to rely on sources that are really not that well distributed through the populace. You know about them because you have an interest and you pay attention to such things. It is unlikely that the majority of people, (or even the majority of the 50% of the people who have changed their views on SSM), have actually encountered any of your reports.
You enjoy believing that you have shamed nearly 50% of the population into taking a pro-SSM stance. It seems an odd belief, but so be it.
The First Amendment grants a right not merely to hold religious beliefs of your choosing, if any, but also to free exercise of those beliefs. Government is not free to squelch all religious expression, even that of an employee.
At times there may be a conflict between religious expression and a government policy for an employee. In such cases courts have some guidance how to sort out the conflicting claims.
It would be unacceptable for a city to put “no Muslims or Sikhs should apply” on a job advertisement for firefighters. Many Muslims and Sikhs regard keeping their beards unshorn as a religious obligation. However a fire service might argue that having a clean shaven face allows for proper sealing of an air mask needed by firefighters. Courts have ruledboth ways on such claims.
Would you PLEASE stop saying that shaming people won’t get them to change their mind. Social pressure is about silencing the bigoted opinions of people who won’t change their mind.
And once you do, you’ve done three things. 1. You’ve changed their relationship to what they are saying, forcing a certain amount of mindfulness. 2. You’ve changed how they interact with others, denying them the ability to convey their worldview as readily. 3. You’ve made them stop being so fucking rude.
Language impacts thought. How we say things matters when it comes to how we think about things. And it matters in how the people we’re talking to think about things. And it matters to the people who are the recipients of the fucking rudeness.
Which, of course, entirely misses the point, which was not that any one of these specific subjects would be widely known, but to demonstrate the language in which opposition to gay rights is routinely discussed by gay rights activists. There’s a reason I included those links to articles and videos by homophobes. If the other side is actively rejecting the argument that they’re bigots, then the message that opposition to gay rights is a form of bigotry is pretty clearly getting out there.
Not a claim I’ve made, but thanks for trying. When you’ve figured out what the discussion in this thread is actually about, feel free to give it another shot.
Yup, you simply want to impose your beliefs on others but don’t want others to impose their beliefs on you.
Got it.
10-4
No, it’s the bigotry of the so-called tolerant that does, but simply a teeny tiny bit. It’s actually fun to see how, deep inside, they want to use the same tacticts they decried when they were on the other side of the fence. It’s a teaching moment for those who could be deceived by the siren calls of “tolerance” and try to find as much common ground as possible. It’s 100%, 99% makes you Stalin.