Elvis,
That’s up to the individual. Abandoning a job costs money and may not result in a future recommendation. It’s the employee’s choice.
I suspect some will reapply for the same job, and when it is refused will claim religious discrimination.
Crane
Ah, but the folks mentioned in the article are confident that their deity will take care of them (translation: find them some other job). It provides, after all. :dubious:
Of course not.
It’s just that some believers don’t understand that “freedom of religion” also means freedom FROM religion - other peoples’ religions you don’t believe in.
Well, as long as you’re admitting it’s not based in reality…
Yes; the fact that the ones who are not ready to do their jobs have not yet been retrained, reassigned, or dismissed is proof positive that their supervisors need to be retrained, reassigned, or dismissed, which is a serious problem.
“Buh-bye; don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!”
No. The job changed; the employees need to adapt accordingly. For example, we have some people here who used to write documents by hand and send them to the typists; now, they use computers. The management didn’t make special accommodations to keep the old system in place for them if they didn’t like the new one.
As a practical matter, reassignment might be the simplest solution all around, but they don’t have an active responsibility to provide it.
I propose that people who raise these objections to doing their jobs might as well be provided with free Cadillac and plastic cards redeemable for filet mignon and caviar. If they want to live the welfare-bum stereotype, they might as well go whole hog about it.
In any case, points to the Decatur County clerks for putting their money where their mouth is. But now the REAL test is for the actual Decatur County government to act to promptly fill the vacancies with willing and able applicants or transferees and resume service ASAP. Then we’ll know if they’re serious about upholding the Law.
I forgot to consider option c) all of the above.
This nice lady in Kentucky isn’t just politely decliningand asking a co-worker to help instead.
Perhaps their supervisors wisely checked with legal and found case history is not so clear cut?
Not ready to do their jobs is not enough if that objection is religiously based. It must be an “undue hardship” on the employer to justify not providing a religious accommodation.
If another person does it, I don’t see a denial of constitutional rights.
And I think everyone agrees that the state is still liable if marriage licenses are not being issued to gay couples.
Did they have a religious objection to the new system?
You seem, repeatedly, to have read my idea incorrectly.
My point was to provide two extreme positions: one were they would not even think about giving the licence and one were they try their best to to what they think is right and still serve the customer.
My point has been proven again that 99% is the same as 0%.
I’m not sure how that proves your point. Can you give a concrete example – even a worked hypothetical one – of someone treating 99% agreement as the same as 0% agreement?
I can’t think of an instance of that happening. It may be an issue of perception: 99% agreement gets the response you consider proportionate for 0% agreement, whereas the response to actual 0% agreement would be even harsher. Or you may be looking at 0% agreement and somehow seeing 99% agreement. Or I may be wrong. But I can’t be sure.
Or maybe it’s something that can’t be really scaled that granularly down to 99%-of-the-way; for instance, calling it marriage vs using some other neologism is pretty much a 0/1 alternative. Obviously in the example given earlier alternative (b) is the much more civil one, but it still is NOT something for which to say “good enough, no need to progress beyond that”. It’s not “anything but 100% unconditional/unquestioning or else you’re Stalin”, it’s “not good enough, do better”.
Well, here on the SDMB
I get that, from your perspective, it is still wrong, but I sincerely appreciate the comment “not good enough, do better” because it closes the gap immensly. It acknowledges progress while still striving for the desired outcome. Such a response makes dialogue and improvement easier.
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.
Claims of religious liberty infringement didn’t work for discriminating against blacks back when, so I personally don’t see it doing much better now for gays. Religious liberty discrimination has been ruled in recent times to not extend past strictly religious institutions like churches. Not even religiously affiliated universities are immune. This is why you will never see a church being forced to marry a gay couple or a previously divorced couple or have black congregants if the church doesn’t want to do it. And I am absolutely fine with that.
The problem potentially is that sexual orientation has not been assigned as a protected class yet as far as I know. Whereas race is and has been for a long time.
I welcome a lawyer type to clarify.
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?
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?