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

[John_Mace]

@Acsenray

I don’t care if zero people changed sides when they were shamed. The point is to shame them into shutting up until they die and to disincentivize others from joining that side in the first place.

Shut them up until they die, huh? Good point. We can’t allow people to be exposed to wrong-thinking.

[Iggy]

I’d rather the jerks speak their minds. Easier to know who they are. And at least for private sector businesses it let’s me know where I should spend my money.

[vivalostwages]

@stpauler

S
This is why drawing a line anywhere becomes capricious and ridiculous. As I said in another thread:
I want to know why it’s “deeply held religious beliefs”. Why does religion suddenly become that important. I have deeply held beliefs but am not religious, so do my beliefs do not count?
?

Somewhat tangentially, what would you do if you were a college professor and a student refuses to do an assignment, read something, or watch a film because of the subject matter or rating?
I’ve had a couple of Mormon students say they wouldn’t watch anything rated R because of their faith. (No other students have ever raised an objection, even the religious ones). I ended up telling them they would just have to deal with it because I had already stated in my syllabus, on Day One, that I wasn’t going to create alternative assignments. They managed by reading about the films online and discussing said films with classmates during group work.
Another Mormon student, not one of mine, demanded alternatives to an R- rated film in her class and, when told no, went to the dept. head and then the dean, both of whom backed the professor. The student dropped the class.
(I have to wonder how they get through history classes if the profs decide to show 12 Years a Slave or Schindler’s List.)

 And there's more:  

If It's Not Against Your Religion, Please Offer Some Comments

[Broomstick]

@Acsenray

Traveling with dogs or alcohol is not a fundamental right.

Traveling with a guide dog is, in fact, a legal right. We’re not talking about pets, we’re talking about guide dogs which are working animals.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Acsenray

Traveling with dogs or alcohol is not a fundamental right. Indeed, states can still regulate or ban the sale or consumption of alcohol. Your condo board can prohibit you from having pets. I don’t accept this as a parallel.

Where did you hear any of that?

The use of guide dogs or service dogs for people who require them is, by law, a fundamental right.

Beyond that, the Muslim cabbies IMHO were being grossly misled as to what the Hadiths said in regards to dogs.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

Can you show me cases where clerks refused to issue licenses because they objected to some other religious aspect, such as mix-race, adultery, being married previously, having out-of-wedlock children etc., and said clerk was just allowed to do so?

You need a cite for the fact that state employees were refusing to perform marriages or issue marriage licenses to mixed race couples in 1967 after Loving v Virginia? In 1967?

Like I said, this isn’t likely to happen in a place where they would get fired for refusing to marry a gay couple. It is likely to happen in a place like Texas where the Attorney General tells state employees that they can refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

[John_Mace]

@Ibn_Warraq

Where did you hear any of that?

The use of guide dogs or service dogs for people who require them is, by law, a fundamental right.

Nit pick: Laws don’t create rights, but rather they create legal obligations. Those are not the same thing. The ADA created legal obligations for businesses to accommodate guide dogs. but AFAIK, the SCOTUS did not create a right derived from the Constitution for same.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Cyros

For it to be religious wouldn’t they have to provide some sort of evidence that the marriage referred to in the license be the same marriage that their religion refers to? I think it is pretty obvious that a religious ceremony in itself does not grant any of the legal rights and obligations that a government marriage does. That in itself should be enough to show that they are not the same thing. This is further evinced by the fact that a government marriage requires no religious imprimatur to be considered valid.

It seems obvious to me that, regardless of the religious background of the clerk, the marriage referred to by the license is a different beast from whatever marriage is held to be by his religion.

I don’t think that’s enough to get you where you want to go. You’ve have done a good job of making an argument that convinces people that already believe as you do.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hershele_Ostropoler

Yeah, “bigot” actually means something not merely more specific than, but different from, “a person the speaker doesn’t like.” Are you arguing that SSM opponents aren’t bigots? Well, you’re not, but do you intend to? If you do, do that. If you don’t, you recognize why they’re being called bigots.

Yabbut he’s in an interracial marriage.

Yabbut he doesn’t know that.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Broomstick

If you refuse to do what is required by your job, sure.

If the job description changes you have two choices:

1. Change in accordance with the new rules and do your job
2. Look for a new job

This is the case for every other job in the world, why not that of a public employee?

Its not the case for every other job in the world.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Verily

I don’t believe anyone has advocated that. If the religious bigot does the job required of him, issuing a marriage license to the gay couple in line and keeping his hateful views to himself, I don’t believe anyone in this thread is saying he should be fired for having those views when he goes home and rants to his wife about how he had to process a pair of fuckin’ queers today. He’s as free to feel that way, and to rant to his wife about it, as we are to call him a bigot for doing so. Holding hateful views and expressing them privately on your own personal time is not grounds for termination. But, and several of us have said this in several different ways now, if he refuses to process them on the grounds that he personally doesn’t approve of their marriage, then he’s refusing to fulfill his job duties. He can, and should, get in trouble for that, professionally. And if he doesn’t heed the reprimand and do his job, then he can, and should, lose that job. Not because he’s a bigot. Because he’s refusing to do his job.

You misunderstand what I’m saying. If the employer can make a reasonable accomodation so that the marriage license gets issued but by somebody else and the employee is otherwise very productive, then why does he need to be fired?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Valteron

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:

Are you a religious bigot? It sounds all sorts of absurd to folks who aren’t religious bigots. We still protect their religious freedom, maybe a bit too much but I think we protect it all the same.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

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.

Its unacceptable to YOU. If the license doesn’t get issued at all then its probably unacceptable to the SCOTUS but are you so sure it is unacceptable if all the licenses get issued but there is one dude in the clerk’s office that doesn’t issue them?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@kayT

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?

Because we have a bill of rights and a federal statute that says otherwise.

How the fuck do you think Hobby Lobby won that case?

[Acsenray]

@Broomstick

Traveling with a guide dog is, in fact, a legal right. We’re not talking about pets, we’re talking about guide dogs which are working animals.

Read the original statement. It says “or pets.”

@Ibn_Warraq

The use of guide dogs or service dogs for people who require them is, by law, a fundamental right.

It’s statutory. Fundamental rights exist even in the absence of a statutory basis. If the ADA is repealed and the Supreme Court says there still exists a constitutional right that cannot be superseded by the preferences and commercial concerns of taxi drivers, then it will be a fundamental right.

[Gyrate]

I know neither of them is wearing their Mod hats but watching Miller and tomndebb slug it out here feels a bit like watching Mommy and Daddy fighting.

@Aji_de_Gallina

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.

No, I get it. If someone expresses bigoted views, that’s intolerant, but if someone calls them a bigot for expressing their views, that’s intolerant AND hypocritical. Because it’s bigoted to call someone a bigot for being a bigot.

[Broomstick]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Its not the case for every other job in the world.

Yes, that was already covered. You’d know this if you read the entire thread.

[Broomstick]

@Acsenray

It’s statutory. Fundamental rights exist even in the absence of a statutory basis. If the ADA is repealed and the Supreme Court says there still exists a constitutional right that cannot be superseded by the preferences and commercial concerns of taxi drivers, then it will be a fundamental right.

[Nitpick]The guide dog privileges were granted by law well before the ADA, so repealing the ADA would not affect them.[/nitpick]

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Boyo_Jim

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.

@Czarcasm

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?

@John_Mace

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.

That was me, or at least I said as much in other threads. Not sure about this one. A stay is only necessary to delay a decision once it has already become final. The trial level decisions which reached the same conclusion as Obergefell were generally effective immediately because they were specific orders for injunctive relief.

Obergefell is not effective immediately against states because the SCOTUS clerk will not issue a mandate for 25 days following the ruling, as is the court’s practice.

It is highly disingenuous to assert that you don’t need to comply for 25 days unless you have filed a request for rehearing (and frankly, even if you have, since as far as I can tell SCOTUS has never granted rehearing of a final order), but it is not unlawful.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That was me, or at least I said as much in other threads. Not sure about this one. A stay is only necessary to delay a decision once it has already become final. The trial level decisions which reached the same conclusion as Obergefell were generally effective immediately because they were specific orders for injunctive relief.

Obergefell is not effective immediately against states because the SCOTUS clerk will not issue a mandate for 25 days following the ruling, as is the court’s practice.

It is highly disingenuous to assert that you don’t need to comply for 25 days unless you have filed a request for rehearing (and frankly, even if you have, since as far as I can tell SCOTUS has never granted rehearing of a final order), but it is not unlawful.

WTF does this mean? Does this 25 day period respresent something other than the time period during which an appeal can be filed? Is there any legal basis for the belief that the ruling does not have to be implemented during the same time?