No, it’s just a little more complicated. 
Seriously, let’s not argue about that, OK?
We’re not talking about the military here, so that’s not relevant. Interesting, maybe, but no relevant. You join up for a time, and you can’t quit. That’s a HUGE difference.
They have declared war, it’s a war they are still fighting, and some very high ranking politicos, some of whom directly addressing these clerks, are saying that the SCOTUS hasn’t the final say in this matter and that people should rebel, so excuse me if I don’t seem too concerned about hurting their widdle feewings right now.
The only parallel I can think of is Keith Bardwell, the Louisiana JP who refused to perform an interracial marriage in 2009. Bardwell resigned after a number of public officials called for his firing.
Can you guess which bleeding heart liberal said that?
It was Bobby Jindal.
Gay rights activists have been characterizing opposition to SSM as “bigotry” for years and years now, and every time we do, someone chimes in with some variation of this. We’ve largely ignored this advice. And today, gay marriage is legal throughout the country, and supported by a majority of Americans. And this has happened faster than any other major social change in the history of the country.
So, contrary to your expectations, it would appear that calling people bigots for opposing SSM is, in fact, extraordinarily effective.
It identifies the behavior as socially unacceptable. It can be identifying it for the person accused and it can be identifying it for observers. Either way, it is saying “This is unacceptable behavior and I’m not going to ignore its unacceptability.”
Nice pull!
For it to be religious wouldn’t they have to provide some sort of evidence that the marriage referred to in the license be the same marriage that their religion refers to? I think it is pretty obvious that a religious ceremony in itself does not grant any of the legal rights and obligations that a government marriage does. That in itself should be enough to show that they are not the same thing. This is further evinced by the fact that a government marriage requires no religious imprimatur to be considered valid.
It seems obvious to me that, regardless of the religious background of the clerk, the marriage referred to by the license is a different beast from whatever marriage is held to be by his religion.
The first two passages are about causing someone to sin. I’d think that would cover leading people into teh gay, but these clerks are hardly causing anyone to do anything.
The third passage would seem to imply that the clerk try to convert the sinner applying for a license. It would be interesting if someone would claim that religious freedom means he should have the right to proselytize on government time.
So, thanks, but none of these seems to cover it.
Was it wrong to call everyone who was opposed to desegregation a bigot?
People can be bigots in private, it is where it gets into the public domain, as in these cases, where there is a problem.
I knod of like the idea of blinded limbless drowned obstructionist clerks. 
Is it really religious bigotry, or is it plain bigotry which they try to use religion to excuse? SSM does not appear in the Bible at all.
Maybe the clerks think the same sex couples they see are wearing chastity rings, and so won’t engage in any acts which are listed as sinful in the Bible until they get married?
Yeah, “bigot” actually means something not merely more specific than, but different from, “a person the speaker doesn’t like.” Are you arguing that SSM opponents aren’t bigots? Well, you’re not, but do you intend to? If you do, do that. If you don’t, you recognize why they’re being called bigots.
Yabbut he’s in an interracial marriage.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. It would be interesting to see Gallup or Pew come up with the number of people who actually changed their opinion in order to avoid an accusation of bigotry vs the number of people whose views were changed by the simple phenomenon of encountering an increasing number of gay people who plead for better treatment. (Or the simple increase in the number of people–especially those under 30–who have been more exposed to less hostile representations of homosexuality in various media.)
What on earth do someone’s religious beliefs have to do with their jobs? It’s ridiculous to worry about someone’s “religious liberty” when talking about their employment. Work is work; religion is religion. They don’t have anything to do with one another. Just as civil marriage contracts have nothing whatsoever to do with any religious rites at all. Just stop it!
Depends.
Telling a clerk to issue a license. Not a religious issue.
Telling a Christian to work on a Sunday or a Jew to work on a Saturday, no longer a religious issue.
Telling a Muslim taxi driver to accept a fare carrying liquor is not a religious issue from my perspective, but several cabbies, a couple of years back, disagreed.
Telling a doctor to perform an abortion or to perform an execution wanders very much into the overlap of religion and employment.
Maybe has to do with religion but not “religious liberty.” You have the freedom to find another job, not to redefine the one you have.
I think many anti-gay or anti-SSM folks are misinformed rather than hateful. I’m sure many are hateful, too, but when speaking of broad categories or people we don’t actually know, our society is better served by offering the benefit of the doubt.
It’s not that long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder (I was an adult when that changed), and it was a blink of the eye ago in historical timeframes that our president was anti-SSM, too.
We have no idea who these people are (the clerks), what their history or beliefs are. Vilifying them might be cathartic, but I don’t believe it is useful or helpful.
I have just about had it with these unelected activist clerks redefining traditional employment.
Well I seriously doubt that is ture but even if it were true it would be a distinction that had no relative value to the overall situation.
They’ve been given the message six ways from Sunday for decades now. What the fuck more do you want us to do, and how much more time do you want us to waste trying to do it?
It changed all the way back in 1973-that’s before a large percentage of the bigots were born, so they don’t have that excuse.
We know that they are bigots, and we know that it would be useful if they would either do the job they were hired to do, or quit and let someone else who needs the job fill the position.
Got any more excuses?