The recalcitrants are* in charge* of those offices, and their claimed “religious convictions” require them not to let anybody under them do it either.
So, yep.
Time to let it go, chief.
There isn’t a damned one of them that didn’t know there was a possibility the SCOTUS might rule this way, and every single one of them have had plenty of time to decide whether or not they would be willing to do the job if it came to that. The was no sudden surprise that they needed to get used to-There was television, radio, internet, their churches, office chat, all going on for many years now.
Oh, please. Does it feel good to slip into the martyr’s mantle so easily?
They need to either do their job or resign and find another one that they CAN do within their religious beliefs. But I find it hard to believe that any of them that have been county clerks for more than a week haven’t found themselves issuing marriage licenses to people who technically violate their religious mores, and I certainly haven’t heard about any of them refusing to serve those people. It’s only now, since OOGEDY BOOGEDY GAY PEOPLE have been required to be treated like actual human beings with rights and everything that they suddenly find themselves unable to reconcile their job and their faith.
That’s fine. I’m not interested in forcing them to go against their faith. I am, however, very interested in forcing them to either do the job they signed up to do (and in some cases, swore a vow to do) or step aside, either temporarily or permanently, and allow the law to be followed by someone who doesn’t have objections.
I swear, nobody jumps into the martyr’s grave like a conservative christian…
Well, I wouldn’t use that term, but yeah, I sort of am. I don’t expect every human in the country to adjust to rapidly changes social mores at the same rate.
Hmm. Sounds like we agree on the principle, but just disagree on the timetable.
And if these were people who objected for non-religious reasons, I’d say the same damn thing. Don’t pretend we’re throwing Christians to the lions here. The law is that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and also the territories of the United States. If they can’t follow the law, they need to step aside.
“Additional duties as required.” Usually that just means doing the crap jobs everybody hates to the new guy, like refilling the toner cartridge or ordering pizza.
There is nothing in the constitution that compels them to act against their religious convictions. The fact of the matter is that almost none of these people really have the religious conviction to maintain their anti-gay position if there are consequences. They are happy to shit on other people’s heads when it is consequence free but not if it mean they might get fired. A municipal employee from Kansas might file a lawsuit with a wink and a nod to their employer so they don’t have to process gay marriages (but remain gainfully employed in the meanwhile). The same municipal employee would not try the same thing in San Francisco where their case would be for wrongful termination (or something more along those lines). In the end, people will have to sue their states or local governments and when the lawsuits start to get expensive, the fiscal conservatives will throw the religious conservatives under the bus like they always do.
YES YOU ARE!
Telling somebody to have a seat over there on the group W bench and wait while another clerk can be found to process the marriage license singles them out - it puts them in a separate group. There is no functional difference then telling the colored folks to use the other water fountain or that they can’t get lunch at the counter - just go around back and we will serve you at the back door.
The word you are missing here is discrimination. A public employee does not get to pick and choose whom they serve. If you have sincerely held religious belief that prevents you from carrying out all of your duties as a public employee, you must be terminated and not later, not tomorrow, today and right now.
Jobs change, and that’s part of it now. I’ve had plenty of jobs that had additional duties added after I was long established in my position. Sometimes I hated the new tasks, but it wasn’t my place to say, “I’m not doing this particular task because I don’t like it, and it wasn’t supposed to be my job.” My options were to suck it up and incorporate the new tasks, immediately, or to resign my position and look for other work. Why should a government employee who doesn’t like that gay marriage is a thing now get it any easier? They can do their job, as it now exists, or they can hit the bricks.
When they were hired, issuing marriage licences to couples who can legally get married was part of their job description. Nobody promised them that the definition of who can get married would never change. If next year, their state decides that the minimum marriage age should be reduced from 18 to 16, for example, they are not allowed to refuse marriage licences to 16-year-olds because they think it is too young.
If you want a real-life example. State laws that made interracial marriage illegal were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967. So in the (mostly southern) states that had formerly restricted marriage to members of the same race, clerks were now required to issue licences to mixed-race couples, no matter how they felt about it.
To use your sentence, Damuri, “Facilitating interracial marriage might not have been part of the job description when they got hired.”
Has anyone stopped to consider that public employees are paid from the taxes of ALL the people, and that gay people pay taxes like everyone else?
They are still not being asked to facilitate entry into marriage as understood by their religion. They are being asked to provide a legally mandated license to participate in a government recognized contract bearing the same name.
Facilitating marriage always was. If they can’t do that, they cannot do the job.
Also, it was never part of their job to endorse or approve of people’s marriage. Just to issue licenses.
Who the hell says that?
Most employment agreements can end when one party no longer wants to participate. Government employees are less likely to be at-will. I don’t know if that matters. I’m trying to think of some situation (that isn’t ludicrous) where the job changes and is no longer compatible with the employee’s beliefs.
Although I’m not sure I believe many people’s religion actually forbids filling a civil form for marriage.
As for the quakers and nukes thing, I would expect separation in any scenario I’ve thought of thus far. It’s not about “lawful orders” from “superiors”. It’s about whether the employment arrangement is still mutually desired. If it’s not, then buh bye.
Could you explain that to the racist, misogynistic, homophobic, trans-ignorant, hateful dickbags who sit next to me?
People who believe in the separation of Church and State. I personally think that conservative Christians are gigantic assholes whose hate and bigotry should relegate them to a permanent class of joke citizens, but I can’t bring that into my state employee job and discriminate against them in the issuance of benefits. And I would never even consider it, because it’s not my call to make them suffer for their ignorance and hate, at least not as a state employee. I process their applications the same as I process the application of an atheist, or a Reform Jew, or a Wiccan. It’s PART OF MY JOB, and my personal feelings against some of our clients are irrelevant and must be compartmentalized out of the way while performing my job duties.
John Mace, you are still talking as if this decision was somehow “sprung” on them in some sort of “OHMYGHOD! What just happened??” sort of way, and this is absolute bullshit. This SCOTUS ruling has been in the works for a while and all the clerks knew it, and I doubt very many of them didn’t attend mandatory meetings about what might happen if the ruling went either way. None of them were caught unawares by what happened, but a few seem to think that local politics will allow them to get away with the same old shit.
Ah, so they took the job when there was no one really thought they would be issuing marriage licenses to gay couples but since they have had notice that this might be coming down the pipe, they should have quit before it became required so they should just get with the program and damn their deeply held religious beliefs?
If an accommodation can be made where others in the office can process the marriage license, why do we have to fire the person who is refusing to do so out of deeply held religious beliefs?
If that’s what’s happening, I’m fine with that. But most of the stuff I’ve seen is clerks simply refusing to issue, period. After all, what good is having strict religious beliefs if you can’t prevent the public from violating them, right?
Government employees, at the county clerk level, are likely to be under the Civil Service system (details vary by state). Even so, refusal to do your damn job is a firing offense, it just takes more of a process than on the outside where it’s pretty much immediate.