If it’s that hard to find another job, consider that very fact when you decide not to do your job in the first place.
It’s quite hard to look for a job. And it’s a big deal. But that does not meant that people who choose not to do a job should continue to be paid.
BTW, what could be more hateful than defying the law to refuse service, John Mace?
Killing someone. Was that a serious question? There are lots of things more hateful than that, on the hatefulness scale.
But apparently being willing to defy the law to deny service to someone doesn’t tip the scale for you? It isn’t as if this was sprung on them all at once-this has been up in the air for a long time now. If they want to hate, they can do it on their own time, and on their own dime.
If you wanted to dock them X% of their pay during the process, I could understand. As long as X was more or less proportional to the number of licenses they won’t grant.
Graciousness is not achieved by acquiescing to conditions or demands after you have won and the terms are set; graciousness is not gloating or deriding your former opponent after you win.
What you advocate is accepting further deprivation of rights, and that’s what the whole fuss was about in the first place, John.
If you read all my posts on this subject, you’ll see that no one would be deprived of their rights. I specifically said that the county elected officials needed to assure that someone was available to issue licenses to same sex couples.
What if they were denying to issue them to all christians, or to people with dark colored skin?
Why is it ok for them to arbitrarily be cruel to X, just because they are bigoted against X? That flaunting of the law and using an official position to push their personal bigotry is the exact reason they should be fired. They are public servants not vindictive rulers, empowered by divinity.
What the fuck? Is that how it works when it comes to deliberately refusing to do part of any other job, or is this a special concession for those that decide to discriminate against same-sex couples?
Already covered in post 779
Flouting, not flaunting. 
How, by hiring extra people on the taxpayer’s dime? No.
No, not covered in 799. Forcing them to do their job does not empower them to verbally spew bigotry from the job.
As a last resort, maybe. But I thought paying taxes was the price we paid to live in a civilized society. We are witness to one of the fastest social changes in our nation’s history. A few months accommodation to those we disagree with won’t kill us. It might actually make us stronger (or so I’ve heard).
So people hired full time should be able to pick and choose a portion of time they’ll work? A portion of their job they selectively decide not to do?
Nobody said getting another job was easy. Putting those words in my mouth was childish and disingenuous.
However, it’s also true that hewing to your conscience is not always easy either. If your conscience dictates that you cannot do your job, you have a potentially tough choice to make.
So as long as the clerks are polite about ignoring the law, failing to do their jobs, and treating gays as second-class citizens, everything’s hunky-dory.
Really? Legalized marriage for Christians and people with dark colored skin just happened a few days ago? I don’t think so, but if you have a cite…
That was covered in post 800.
I would hope that if I were in the position of an objecting clerk, I would be gracious enough to overcome my bias or quit my job. But we’re not all very gracious, are we?
And I think I pointed out why such a position might very well make the other side stronger-it gives the bigots hope that they can carry on, and it fuels the fire of the politicians that feed off of those bigots.
Yes, it does tip the scale. But you asked me if anything tipped the scale more, and so that is the question I answered.