|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jun 30, 2015 10:36:25 GMT -5
The more I'm reading in the news, the more convinced I am that the "religious objection" is nothing more than a red herring, end run, hail mary attempt to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. I'm 100% in favor of supporting a person's rights, including religious (not just Christian, but all legitimate religions), but when it's used as a dodge it's offensive. Forget what I said earlier. Government employees, do your job or if you feel strongly enough to stand on the strength of your convictions, find a job elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 30, 2015 11:06:03 GMT -5
Yes. It is just a dodge. It is shameful. These people are not doing themselves (or their religion) any favors by being rude, insensitive, foolish, deceitful, intolerant bigots.
Anyone who is pointing this out is trying to do them a favor.
Do they want to have a role in human progress, or do they want to be ridiculed, sidelined and eventually forgotten?
It's your choice, bigots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 14:48:30 GMT -5
Screw compromise. If a civil servant discriminates against any citizen in the name of their religion, they should be fired and maybe even criminally charged with violating that citizen's civil rights. I'm sick to death of this country kowtowing to right wing fundamentalism and its deliberate propagation of ignorance and hatred. If they don't like it here, let 'em go back to the Twelfth Century where they belong. Cei-U! I summon the line in the sand! Life is compromise, whether anyone likes it or not.
If a civil servant discriminates against any citizen for any reason, they should be fired and if the law allows, criminally prosecuted.
If a civil servant has religious or other objections to a job function, they should be moved to another job if possible. If not possible, they would need to look for another job.
Personally I think that not wanting to issue a same-sex marriage license is really stretching it, but it's not my place to judge.
But I can also see other situations where a person's beliefs should be respected. What if a person works in the prison system and is told they're being moved to a job that's connected with executions? Many people have philosophical and religious objections to the death penalty. Should they be forced to participate, even indirectly, in executions?
Nobody is forced to do anything. They're free to look for another job. pretty sure nobody is tossed into the execution chamber, I think that's the kind of job you actually have to work toward. Same with issuing marriage licenses. You don't accidentally end up doing that. It's not like a fry cook winding up on the drive thru. You don't just apply at city hall as a janitor and end up being a court clerk. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 30, 2015 15:20:07 GMT -5
The more I'm reading in the news, the more convinced I am that the "religious objection" is nothing more than a red herring, end run, hail mary attempt to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. I'm 100% in favor of supporting a person's rights, including religious (not just Christian, but all legitimate religions), but when it's used as a dodge it's offensive. Forget what I said earlier. Government employees, do your job or if you feel strongly enough to stand on the strength of your convictions, find a job elsewhere. oh yeah, it's pretty plainly a dodge but I think placating them while at the same time making sure the dodge doesn't work is far better than firing them and thus giving them the war cry of, "See I told you our faith was being discriminated against!" By saying, sure you can abstain for religious reasons so long as there is someone who can service these citizens makes it so they don't get to block gay marriages but it doesn't give them the ability to scream about their "rights" being taken away. I'm sure they'd still try but it would be much less convincing on their part. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 17:21:58 GMT -5
They will kick and scream every inch of the way. There is no reason to give them an inch to kick and scream about. If it's not okay for a racist county clerk to deny services to black people then it's also not okay for a county clerk to deny services to gay people. They can cry about their religion being under attack all they want, because they're going to cry about that anyway. They were crying about it before any state had ever legalized gay marriage. They've been crying about it my entire life, and as far as I can tell for the entire two thousand years their faith has existed. Lets not keep gays second class citizens to appease their bigotry.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 30, 2015 17:45:20 GMT -5
They will kick and scream every inch of the way. There is no reason to give them an inch to kick and scream about. If it's not okay for a racist county clerk to deny services to black people then it's also not okay for a county clerk to deny services to gay people. They can cry about their religion being under attack all they want, because they're going to cry about that anyway. They were crying about it before any state had ever legalized gay marriage. They've been crying about it my entire life, and as far as I can tell for the entire two thousand years their faith has existed. Lets not keep gays second class citizens to appease their bigotry. But it wouldn't keep them second class citizens, they'd get their licences because there would have to be someone there to grant them despite some who would have reservations. I don't like those reservations, they're ugly to me, but it doesn't cost anything to give them an inch as long as they cede the ability for others to grant the licences in their place. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 30, 2015 18:08:48 GMT -5
If I thought that gay couples seeking marriage licenses would always be accommodated by local clerk offices, I think it might be a nice gesture to try and compromise with these religious bigots. But I don't trust them, and they haven't done anything to indicate that they deserve any trust.
We're not talking about minor delays while the bigot clerk finds a non-bigot to handle the paperwork.
"Just wait a minute, hon. The atheist bastard who handles you people is at lunch and we expect him back in twenty minutes. So just be patient and you can get back to your sinning in no time."
It will be so much worse than that. They'll get the runaround, gay couples will spend all day being sent from one office to another, and they'll end up not getting a license.
Have you ever read up about the crap blacks in the South had to put up with when they registered to vote, even into the 1960s?
Not to mention that people still put up with that crap TODAY when they try to get a voter ID in some places.
A friend of mine was in rural Louisiana about ten years ago, and she overheard a clerk bragging to a co-worker about giving the runaround to a black woman seeking a marriage license. The clerk was almost laughing because the black woman (in her 20s) ended up leaving in tears without a license. This happened in 2005.
These people are despicable. There should be no compromise on this issue. They should do the job, or find another job if they are that desperate to make their fellow christians look like a bunch of buttholes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jun 30, 2015 18:13:07 GMT -5
If you're a public servant, you don't get to choose which members of the public you get to serve, period. If you (the hypothetical you) and whatever bat-shit crazy "man of God" has been filling your head with hatred can't deal with that, find another job.
Cei-U!
I summon the zero tolerance for intolerance!
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 30, 2015 18:30:00 GMT -5
If I thought that gay couples seeking marriage licenses would always be accommodated by local clerk offices, I think it might be a nice gesture to try and compromise with these religious bigots. But I don't trust them, and they haven't done anything to indicate that they deserve any trust. We're not talking about minor delays while the bigot clerk finds a non-bigot to handle the paperwork. "Just wait a minute, hon. The atheist bastard who handles you people is at lunch and we expect him back in twenty minutes. So just be patient and you can get back to your sinning in no time." It will be so much worse than that. They'll get the runaround, gay couples will spend all day being sent from one office to another, and they'll end up not getting a license. Have you ever read up about the crap blacks in the South had to put up with when they registered to vote, even into the 1960s? Not to mention that people still put up with that crap TODAY when they try to get a voter ID in some places. A friend of mine was in rural Louisiana about ten years ago, and she overheard a clerk bragging to a co-worker about giving the runaround to a black woman seeking a marriage license. The clerk was almost laughing because the black woman (in her 20s) ended up leaving in tears without a license. This happened in 2005. These people are despicable. There should be no compromise on this issue. They should do the job, or find another job if they are that desperate to make their fellow christians look like a bunch of buttholes. As you point out these kinds of intolerance already exist and will continue to exist but the compromise would cut out the political refusals by removing that illusion of religious discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 30, 2015 18:37:40 GMT -5
It really is problematic for government employees to claim to not be able to do their jobs for "religious reasons". Far moreso than private businesses. You essentially have the government entity promoting the employees brand of religion by allowing them to not do their job if it "offends" them. There's a very very good argument that this is an Establishment Clause violation.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jun 30, 2015 18:45:49 GMT -5
It really is problematic for government employees to claim to not be able to do their jobs for "religious reasons". Far moreso than private businesses. You essentially have the government entity promoting the employees brand of religion by allowing them to not do their job if it "offends" them. There's a very very good argument that this is an Establishment Clause violation. I'm willing to say you're probably right, I'm just a layman. If that's the case than I guess you don't need to let them save face in order to take away their "discrimination" argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 30, 2015 18:49:31 GMT -5
It really is problematic for government employees to claim to not be able to do their jobs for "religious reasons". Far moreso than private businesses. You essentially have the government entity promoting the employees brand of religion by allowing them to not do their job if it "offends" them. There's a very very good argument that this is an Establishment Clause violation. I'm willing to say you're probably right, I'm just a layman. If that's the case than I guess you don't need to let them save face in order to take away their "discrimination" argument. I could be wrong. I'd be intrigued to see if there is any caselaw on the issue. Loving v. Virginia is pretty analogous. I don't know, however, if there were clerks in Southern states that refused to give issue marriage licenses to interracial couples. I would definitely argue that by refusing to issue the licenses the clerks are in violation of both the First and the Fourteenth Amendments. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jun 30, 2015 18:56:10 GMT -5
Bobby Jindal was singing a different tune about a justice of the peaces's "conscience" and the rule of law as set down by the Supreme Court in 2009. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 19:02:47 GMT -5
They will kick and scream every inch of the way. There is no reason to give them an inch to kick and scream about. If it's not okay for a racist county clerk to deny services to black people then it's also not okay for a county clerk to deny services to gay people. They can cry about their religion being under attack all they want, because they're going to cry about that anyway. They were crying about it before any state had ever legalized gay marriage. They've been crying about it my entire life, and as far as I can tell for the entire two thousand years their faith has existed. Lets not keep gays second class citizens to appease their bigotry. But it wouldn't keep them second class citizens, they'd get their licences because there would have to be someone there to grant them despite some who would have reservations. I don't like those reservations, they're ugly to me, but it doesn't cost anything to give them an inch as long as they cede the ability for others to grant the licences in their place. It would keep them second class citizens, because if a county clerk refuses to provide services to a first class citizen they lose their job. In fact, pretty sure if a county clerk stated on Facebook that they didn't like certain demographics of first class citizens they'd lose their job regardless of the level of service they provide at work. Making an exception for gays makes gays less that others. It DOES cost something. You can't refuse to serve a black couple, an interracial couple, a pagan or Jewish couple, you can't refuse to serve an atheist couple, a couple of immigrants, but you can refuse service to a gay couple, despite the Supreme Court ruling they have all the rights as the rest of us. That is compromising on gay equality, and there should be no compromise. You know what really costs nothing? Enforcing the law. Bigots are still free to be bigots, Christians are still free to be Christians, gays are still equal. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 19:03:30 GMT -5
If I thought that gay couples seeking marriage licenses would always be accommodated by local clerk offices, I think it might be a nice gesture to try and compromise with these religious bigots. But I don't trust them, and they haven't done anything to indicate that they deserve any trust. We're not talking about minor delays while the bigot clerk finds a non-bigot to handle the paperwork. "Just wait a minute, hon. The atheist bastard who handles you people is at lunch and we expect him back in twenty minutes. So just be patient and you can get back to your sinning in no time." It will be so much worse than that. They'll get the runaround, gay couples will spend all day being sent from one office to another, and they'll end up not getting a license. Have you ever read up about the crap blacks in the South had to put up with when they registered to vote, even into the 1960s? Not to mention that people still put up with that crap TODAY when they try to get a voter ID in some places. A friend of mine was in rural Louisiana about ten years ago, and she overheard a clerk bragging to a co-worker about giving the runaround to a black woman seeking a marriage license. The clerk was almost laughing because the black woman (in her 20s) ended up leaving in tears without a license. This happened in 2005. These people are despicable. There should be no compromise on this issue. They should do the job, or find another job if they are that desperate to make their fellow christians look like a bunch of buttholes. As you point out these kinds of intolerance already exist and will continue to exist but the compromise would cut out the political refusals by removing that illusion of religious discrimination. No it wouldn't. No amount of appeasing ever has. |
|
