That is why noone will get fired as long as the marriage licenses get issued regardless of the fact that one particular clerk hates the gay. I posted above, this insistence that people be fired for refusing to issue licenses despite the fact that other clerks in their offices are issuing licenses seems more like punishing religious bigots than recognizing rights.
I’m not seeing how the issuance of the license while a religious person happens to be the one behind the desk constitutes sin on the part of that person.
But I’m also not clear why they think their god cares what the state of Alabama (or wherever) does, or why a supposedly omnipotent being is subject to a secularly established government.
Ok, this is as far as this discussion can get. We disagree and cannot bridge the gap.
Let’s end it here.
I, therefore, completeley misread what I thought you’d say. I stand corrected.
I agree. And it wouldn’t be doing those couples any favors, either (aside from the test case scenario).
There’s a right to decide whether or not you’ll deign to do the job while still collecting a paycheck? News to me… 
To the extent that a requirement of the job conflicts with religious belief, perhaps.
Abercrombie & Fitch requires its employees to adhere to their “Look” policy. An applicant wished to hear a hijab for religious reasons - she refused to perform part of the job. A&F did not hire her on that basis. The case went to the Supreme Court and in an 8-1 decision A&F lost.
Courts look at whether the religious objection can be accommodated without undue hardship to the employer. If so, then the religious objection wins out.
You keep leaving out the question as to whether the religious practice in question discriminates against others. Have there been cases where the court has ruled that a person may discriminate on the job because the discrimination is of a religious nature?
Where in the Bible does it say that someone working in a government capacity cannot do anything to enable a sin? The A&F case had them directly ordering her to go against an expressly stated Koranic restriction. If she refused to sell someone a bikini that would be a better analogy.
How far would you want to go with this? Could a postal clerk refuse to accept invitations for a same sex wedding? Could a building inspector refuse to inspect a gay-owned business? Could a food inspector refuse to give an approval to a gay bar?
I’ve dealt with this several times. The mere fact the employee is discriminating *may * not be sufficient. Each case is handled on its own merits. This will likely be a case of first impression for the courts. I would not be surprised at all to see lower courts split on the issue.
I have cited a case in which the employer lost because they demoted an employee based upon his religiously based white supremacist beliefs.
I’ll put this in context of a clerk issuing marriage licenses. Suppose an employer tells a clerk he must issue licenses to same sex couples. The clerk tells the employer he has a religiously based objection to doing so. The employer insists the clerk act against his right of free exercise of his religious beliefs and issue the marriage license anyway.
The clerk refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple and his supervisor suspends the clerk without pay pending termination proceedings. The clerk files a religious discrimination case.
The legal question would arise as to whether there is there some alternative accommodation that is not an undue burden to the employer that would still meet the government’s goal of providing same sex couples marriage licenses in a non-discriminatory manner? If so (and we’ve discussed some options such as different lines suitably staffed or online issuance) and the employer refuses to provide the accommodation then the employer will lose the case.
If no such accommodation can be made (perhaps a court says developing an online system is an undue burden on the employer or remodeling required to add another service window is too burdensome) then no accommodation need be granted. It would be up to the employee to issue such same sex licenses over his own religious objection or face disciplinary action, up to (presumably) termination)
But if a court finds that an accommodation must be granted and wasn’t then the clerk would win his religious discrimination case. Essentially the court would be saying that the employer never should have put the clerk in that situation to being with.
And what of the same sex couple who was denied a license or whose license was delayed? They could sue the office of the Clerk of Court regardless. Presumably the couple would win its case unless a court decides that whatever delay they experienced was too minimal to be actionable.
Generally, an employer is liable for the actions of the employee so I doubt the clerk would be held personally liable.
Doesn’t have to say it in the Bible, Koran, Torah, or any other scripture. The issues is whether it is a sincerely held religious belief, from wherever derived. Arguing that No True Christian/Muslim/Jew would believe *that * is a losing argument.
Scalia wrote that the court was opening the way to each person being a law unto himself. Nevertheless the Congress passed the RFRA with overwhelming bipartisan support. Anyone care to argue Scalia was wrong given where we are today?
You haven’t “dealt” with it at all-the white supremacist case involved discrimination against an employee for his religious beliefs. Let’s try this one more time:
Have there been cases where the court has ruled that a person may discriminate on the job because the discrimination is of a religious nature? Not discrimination against a religious person because of their religious practice-discrimination from a religious person towards a customer based on their religious beliefs.
Got it?
I’d never argue that no true Christian or whatever wouldn’t believe something hateful and stupid.
So, you agree that the postal clerk should be able to refuse the invitations?
Even religious freedom has boundaries when others are affected. (Such as children being treated.) And I think it is okay to check if the religious beliefs are truly sincerely held and not just a cover for something else.
This white supremacist case you’ve mentioned a few times. Was the guy demoted because he was caught acting in a discriminatory manner, and successfully sued on the grounds that he was acting in accord with his religion? Or was he demoted purely on the basis of his membership in the church, and successfully sued because his employer could not demonstrate that he was putting his racist beliefs into action at his job? Because if it’s the second situation, I don’t think that has any relevance to this discussion.
Well, we are supposed (USA) to live in country with separation of church and state. So really your comments shouldn’t matter. Religious thought or religious texts should have no bearing on legal matters.
it could be the most sincerely held belief possible, but, if it is a legal matter in the USA, religion is supposed to have no impact on legal matters. why are you mentioning sincerity of (religious) belief?
One judge has decided that he will perform SSM, but he has to try to make the gays jump through hoops first.
Cute… Couples have to sign a paper acknowledging that the judge doesn’t like them very much.
I’d certainly like to add a few free-form sentences at the bottom of that document…
Really, suggest to some business owners that they forbid Jewish employees from wearing Yarmulkas and see what happens to them.
Because religious beliefs do have an impact on legal matters as anyone familiar with American history and Law will tell you.
Who has told you differently?
Because Iggy did. But when I was of draft age, at least, if you wanted to apply for conscientious objector status based on religion, you needed to show sincere belief, not that you found God five minutes after your draft notice arrived.
And of course it has an impact on legal matters - how much is what is at issue.