Because they’re refusing to do their job. When you work for someone else, you don’t get to pick and choose which tasks you want to do and which ones you won’t do out of the ones you’re assigned. Their job is to issue marriage licenses. The law now allows marriages to be same sex. They don’t get to say, “I’m only going to issue licenses for the marriages that were legal when I took this job.” That’s illegal discrimination. If they have religious objections to their own job, they’re in the wrong line of work. The fact that this is effectively a new duty added to the job description doesn’t buy them any sympathy from me; if they were fine with how their job was before, but they object to it now, they can look for other work. Same-sex marriage is legal now, so marriage license clerks don’t get to discriminate anymore. Period. If they can’t handle that, they don’t get to be marriage license clerks anymore.
It sort of depends on how you phrase then job description doesn’t it? If their job description didn’t used to include doing something that they had a religious objection to (because it was illegal) and a change in law means now they do, I can see how some might call that a change in job description.
And you think that there were not accomodations made for people who had religious objections to interracial marriage? People had to sue local governments in some places and when the local governments got sued, they figured out how to deal with things pretty quickly.
I don’t see how that is particularly relevant.
Yes, they should quit. I can’t think of a single case where a worker was allowed to excuse himself from issuing licenses because she/he disagreed with them on religious principles, and this would be a damn bad place to start such a practice. Can you imagine a clerk saying “I can’t personally issue you a license because I deeply believe races shouldn’t mix.”?
Does this not tell you that
- It happened in the past-I’d like to think we are better than that now.
- The fact that they had to sue shows that it was a bad idea anyway. It merely slows down the process.
It is now. If they don’t like their new job description, they can find another job.
You have not answered the question why the clerks deserve the graciousness, and not the couples which wish to get married.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal…why are you willing to extend graciousness to the clerks but not to the couples? Why are the couples “less equal”?
On reflection, I am pretty much okay with John Mace’s view that we should give clerks’ staffs a few months to find new jobs and accommodate them in the meantime, if possible. I am certainly not okay with the clerks (it’s important to distinguish between Clerks of Court, who are generally in charge of the offices, and deputy clerks, who are the people physically filling out and delivering licenses) who are refusing to issue any licenses at all. Except this lady, who at least understands that her stupid beliefs are her problem and not those of the people she was elected to serve.
We don’t make those accommodations any more. If anyone is suggesting this should be a permanent thing, that’s dumb.
No “clause” is required. The losing parties have 25 days to petition the clerk of the Supreme Court* for rehearing. Technically, the ruling is not effective until that deadline passes or a petition for rehearing is denied. After the 25 days, the clerk issues a mandate to any state courts whose decisions were under appeal.
It’s true that everyone knows SCOTUS is not going to grant rehearing, and that waiting 25 days is a delaying tactic. It is, however, a legal one.
As a public servant, can I simply claim as my civil right the ability to ignore laws enacted after I began my job so many years ago? Sure, I’m not a religious person, but it would seem to violate my civil rights to require that I be religious in order to ignore certain laws.
Plus, my job would be much easier if I could simply decline to enforce complex new laws, and never have to read what the legislature or the courts have been doing recently.
And this was my response from that other thread:
RNALTB: Thank-you. That was very gracious of you. 
I agree. But that is not a counter-argument to what my position is. I agree that it would be completely fair to fire them. I am trying to go a bit beyond fairness in the spirit of being gracious. You needn’t agree with me.
So once again you ignore the questions on why clerks rights trump the couples?
Why are they more special?
Keep in mind that someone who gets fired for this is probably going to sue in court. They might win.
On what basis?
Keep in mind that people who are discriminated against can sue too…and might win.
I’m not making an argument based on the “clerks’ rights”. I have to honestly ask-- do you really not understand that I am not making a legal or a moral argument? I’m not saying it is illegal to fire the clerks (although it might be, I don’t honestly know). I’m not even saying it would be unfair to fire them. I’ve posted that several times.
I’m just saying that, if it were up to me, I would try and make it easy for the clerks to find another job by not firing them immediately. And I would take whatever steps I could to make sure that same sex couples were able to get their marriage licenses.
Keep in mind that by the time their case come to trial, my proposed transition period would be over and the decision would be moot.
And, in fact, already have.
Yeah, this is pretty much my take on it, too.
I assume that in the counties in question, issuing a license to someone else must obligate the issuer to also get gay married, right?
Because otherwise I don’t see how it’s condoning anything, or has anything whatsoever to do with the issuer’s beliefs. If I refused to do anything that might allow some other person to perform action that I dislike, however indirectly, I’d pretty much be unemployable. And, for example, I’m against public money being spent to endorse religions and “faith based initiatives,” but I still pay the taxes that allow it to happen.
John Mace, I’m not clear on how no one’s rights are affected for what you’re advocating. Let’s say a gay couple goes to get a marriage license and is refused by the clerk (and the clerk’s boss and other clerks are away from the office for the afternoon, or something). What are you advocating should happen? How are the gay couple’s rights not being violated?