No, not today, not where I live. But I can imagine someone saying that 50 years ago not to far from where I live right now. And as long as the state can make reasonable accommodation for that religious belief you are mostly saying that we should punish people who have bigoted religious beliefs.
If their religious beliefs cannot be accommodated without burdening their employer then their employer can (not must) fire them.
What made us better is that we had a fair process that ultimately achieved the correct result. There will undoubtedly be jurisdictions that will permit people to continue to express their religious beliefs and as long as the marriage licenses get issued, why would you sue? There isn’t a lawsuit in the world that is going to enlighten a bigot, all you can do is insist that their bigotry does not impact your life.
And based on that you would circumvent the legal process?
Who cares about beliefs? Its about actions, not beliefs? They can going on hating, pouting and believing the couple is doomed – no one cares. We just care that they perform the duties required by their job, and if their beliefs won’t allow this, they need to get out of that job.
I don’t want to keep defending the bigots but we make reasonable accomodations for all sorts of religious beliefs, why draw the line here? If the licenses get issued and the employee is otherwise productive, what some people seem to be advocating is simply punishing religious bigots for being religious bigots.
The accommodation has to be reasonable. Your religious liberty ion the work environment is not inviolable, your employer simply has to accede to reasonable accommodations.
Issuing marriage licenses is one of the core functions of a deputy clerk. You might as well say we should accommodate car salesmen who won’t sell cars to women because of a religious belief about whether women should be allowed to drive. In other words, this would not be a reasonable accommodation.
I m not saying that we should punish people for having bigoted religious beliefs.
I am saying that having bigoted religious beliefs are not an acceptable excuse for punishing others, and stopping them from doing so is not “punishing” them for their bigoted religious beliefs-which they are still allowed to have.
On what basis could a gay couple that receives a marriage license from an office where one of the employees does not issue marriage licenses to gay couples sue?
As long as the licenses are being issued, on what basis do you sue?
Gays are not yet a protected class.
If and when we get to that point (and we have in may places), then I agree with you. A ten-second delay while another clerk steps up to issue the license is not worth suing over.
However, in other places we’re not there yet, and if people are walking out of the office without receiving a licence, then they have the right and are fully justified in suing.
Note this is a completely separate issue from what if any disciplinary personnel action should be taken against employees who refuse to perform any part of their job.
^ This.
Which is the problem with Kennedy’s decision. He should have just said “intermediate scrutiny” and that would have solved all kinds of problems. Now we have to deal with each and every fucking situation (some pun intended).
Lets say that you are one of 5 state executioners and you (long with the other 4 executioners) are in charge of executing convicted criminals. Then one day the state legalizes euthanasia of terminally ill patients that are in a coma, but out of concerns of how the euthanasia is conducted, the state requires that all euthanasia must be conducted by the state (meaning you). You have a religious objection to executing terminally ill patients in comas that you do not have with convicted criminals.
Can they fire you?
The ruling was against the state not against every individual in America. individuals are still entitled to religious objections to the extent that the objections can be reasonably accommodated. Aren’t they?
It’s a little more complicated than that since the clerks are representatives of the state. It’s not like they are clerks at a hat shop.
Okay, I didn’t have time to read this entire thread, as I usually do, so I apologize if I am repeating what someone else has said.
The answer is cut and dried. Issue the license, or find another line of work. The reason is simple. The issuance of a marriage license by a state authority has 0 relevance in the eyes of God or any church. The State saying that you can be married has 0 influence on weather a particular church or clergy member will perform the ceremony. I don’t understand why people don’t get it. Secular marriage is not the same as Christian matrimony. They are similar enough that ministers get to act in a religious and secular role in the same ceremony, but cannot be compelled to perform ceremonies that violate their religion. Secular JP’s and judges can be compelled, but they should already know that since they are not clergy, any ceremony they perform has no standing with any church. If you are a court clerk, do your secular job, and let the clergy members do their job. Period.
Yes. Only Texas could possibly keep 5 executioners busy.
If I were one of the 5, I would probably quit. assuming this applies to involuntary euthanasia and that neither the patient nor someone with their Medical Power of Attorney has requested this.
Dunno. That seems like more of a scope change than the marriage thing. That’s a better thought experiment than I was able to think up.
I wouldn’t be shocked to see that example go either way.
As a gun rights advocate, I don’t give a shit that one of the clerks in the courthouse disapproves of my keeping or bearing of arms. As long as I can get my permit in a timely fashion, I don’t give a shit. If there is only one person that can issue the permits and they refuse to do so then I can sue the state and the state can deal with it however they like. They can either hire more people so that there is always someone there to process my application or they can fire the current clerk and hire a new one, I don’t care either way.
The clerks will not get sued, the state will. The clerks might get fired but they won’t get sued.