You realize that some marriages are heterosexual right?
Are you sure the clerks get off scot-free legally if they break the law?
It’s important to distinguish between [deputy] “clerks” (small C), and Clerks - the elected officials who direct the clerks. The latter can probably be sued in their individual capacities.
And if that bigoted car salesman sold more cars than any other salesman on the car lot? As long as there are plenty of other car salesmen that would be happy to sell cars to women on the car lot, what is the harm?
Maybe I’m not being clear. Firing or not firing the person is up to the state. Some states will only go as far as the courts force them to. As long as marriage licenses are being issued to gay couples in a timely manner, what does it matter that one of the clerks doesn’t issue them?
I think its mostly a human resources issue. Its not gay couple versus clerk with bigoted religious views. Its is clerk with bigoted religious views versus their employer.
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.
I’ve re-thought this. I might try to keep my job and still refuse, based on the constitutionality of the state ordering agents of the state to go into private institutions and commit murder, which is the only way I can parse your scenario.
I would also hope these institutions would not ALLOW agents of the state to come in to perform them. It seems a lot of executioners are not medical professionals, and I would expect there to be lots of issues about credentialing these people to come in and perform medical procedures.
But if all those objections are put aside by the courts because the whole fucking country goes nuts at once, then yes the executioners can be fired. I would hope they would have the moral courage to quit.
If the employer wants to accommodate a bigoted employee, that is of course its right. You seem to be arguing that it is obligated to. It isn’t, particularly here where it may be opening itself up to liability (if, say, there is no other deputy clerk on duty and a same-sex couple faces a significant delay.)
Well yes and no. The fact that any one clerk refuses to perform the required act is largely irrelevant as long as there are enough others so that the state can perform the required act.
As long as there’s another water fountain across the street, or perfectly good seats in the back of the bus, what’s the harm?
If your bigoted car salesman sold more cars than other salesman, what’s the incentive for the boss to discourage the other salesmen from trying his methods to get the same results, or from hiring more bigoted people to increase sales?
What if didn’t want to quit? Could they fire you?
I already answered this. Yes, assuming all the legal obstacles were removed.
I’m just saying that the firing of the clerk is up to their employer who is ultimately liable for making sure that the marriage licenses get issued. If all the clerks refuse then the state keeps getting sued and keeps losing and having to pay attorney fees for both sides (plus damages) until they fix the situation.
There are always more people out there willing to do the job, if the person currently occupying the position doesn’t feel up to it. I’ve never noticed a “bigotry” work exemption in any job I’ve ever worked in the last 35 years-Has anyone else?
You hid your answer at the very beginning of the very first sentence in your post. I can’t be blamed for missing that. 
Yeah, its called a religious exemption. You can’t ignore the religious part of the bigotry, if it was simply bigotry, you could fire them immediately.
I don’t see how our society is served well by calling everyone opposed to SSM a bigot. I may have thought it was correct at one time, but the more I see it being used, the less accurate, and the less useful, I think it is. Other than making the accuser feel better, what good does it do? People are rarely persuaded to change their minds by being called names.
It’s considerably more complicated. Government employees already have some of their rights restricted. For instance, their rights to participate in partisan politics. Their speech is also curtailed. In the case of the military they give up pretty much all the rights they have beyond what’s spelled out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Fine, call them obstructionists, or call them cute little puppies. Treat the behavior the same.
Can you show me cases where clerks refused to issue licenses because they objected to some other religious aspect, such as mix-race, adultery, being married previously, having out-of-wedlock children etc., and said clerk was just allowed to do so?