Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm somewhat familiar with the concept of "reasonable accomadation" in the federal government for disabilities and religious principles. I'm fairly certain it does not excuse an employee from performing their job primary functions.

Denying marriage licenses on the basis of homosexuality just became the equivalent of denying a marriage license because the couple is interracial. I'm not sure what if anything is the penalty for the latter (I assume it would be a Civil Rights violation, and therefore a crime). The penalty for turning down homosexual license applicants should be the same as turning down interracial license applicants.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


For example, imagine you as a Christian do not believe in Hindu marriage, since you do not believe in Hindu religion. But you are a government clerk whose job it is to register other people's marriages. It is not a religious function. If the marriage is from a different religion to yours, that is not your personal sin to register it, and you do not need to be concerned about it.

Totally agree. Besides... the 'mortal sin' is the sodomy... not gay marriage. Just how the 'mortal sin' isn't divorcing your wife, it is sleeping with your new wife because in the eyes of god you are still married to your old one.

So these same clerks can't issue divorce papers or re-marriages either if they feel issuing the licence is exactly the same as committing the 'mortal sin'.

Anyone who refuses to do it should be put in the mail room with a fat demotion... It is up to them to find a job they can do which doesn't conflict with their religious duties, not refusing to do some core tasks of a job because it conflicts with their beliefs. If you are a vegetarian, don't get a job at KFC. Asking to only allow customers to order green beans and mac and cheese is not a reasonable solution to ask to accommodate your personal freedoms.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm somewhat familiar with the concept of "reasonable accomadation" in the federal government for disabilities and religious principles. I'm fairly certain it does not excuse an employee from performing their job primary functions.

Denying marriage licenses on the basis of homosexuality just became the equivalent of denying a marriage license because the couple is interracial. I'm not sure what if anything is the penalty for the latter (I assume it would be a Civil Rights violation, and therefore a crime). The penalty for turning down homosexual license applicants should be the same as turning down interracial license applicants.

It would depend to what extent it was an essential job function. If a county has 20 people in the Clerks office, and marriage licenses is 10% of their business, the employee could plausibly argue that it's not an essential part of his duties. If there is only one clerk, then it's pretty essential. Also, being a public servant means just that: you serve the people.

One key element to keep in mind: at the federal level, there is no test regarding sincerity of a religious belief. The rule is that if a belief appears reasonably sincere, it is accepted as a belief. That's a good thing, because it protects minority practices and different sects. OTOH, too much litigation in this area may test that, reduce sicnerity of belief to a rebuttable presumption, meaning that a person could show that there is evidnece that the belief in question really has ulterior motives.

I really hope that this grandstanding dies down, because its not going to end well.

I feel like explaining, slowly and carefully, to every small business owner that wants to deny gay people service: you still can. You just can't do it openly.

Frazzled has better idea. You're in business to do business, so do it. Make money.

 Polonius wrote:

I really hope that this grandstanding dies down, because its not going to end well.

It'll die down one way or the other. The wise manager will eliminate these pious protestors' dealings with the public, either through termination or reassignment. Civil Rights lawyers will inevitably clean up what's left.

 Frazzled wrote:

I feel like explaining, slowly and carefully, to every small business owner that wants to deny gay people service: you still can. You just can't do it openly.

Frazzled has better idea. You're in business to do business, so do it. Make money.

Of course. And that's what will end up happening. There has been at most a handful of these cases, and not enough people have the stomach for a years long fight over such a stupid principle.

But, as I've stated before, for creative types that do bespoke work, I can see them adding a layer of information gathering before giving a quote. Serving somebody a meal or selling them ring is one thing, but spending hours or days of your time creating a cake/floral arrangment/whatever for a couple is different.

 Frazzled wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Whats this "we" stuff Canadian?

You didn't realise that you were secretly Canadian? Don't you feel the call of the maple syrup, universal healthcare and the need to write all official documents in French?

Thank you for this, Silver, it made my day (and Frazzled's response was pretty good, too!)

In that case we need to celebrate the national holiday of our forefathers - Canada Day is today!

And speaking of Canada day, can you guys inform all the americans thinking of running up here to get away from marriage equality that, Canada has been allowing it for 10 years now. They also have true socialized medical care, payed for by tax dollars, and their kids will have to learn french. Canada doesn't have major droughts, nor hurricanes so we're assuming god is ok with it.

conservatives that think running away is a good idea, then decide going north through the liberal northern states to a even more liberal country must be the answer
So tell everyone to go south young man, go south.

Don't worry. When Texas decides you Canadians would do better as part of Greater Texas, you won't have to worry about learning French. Just Spanish.

WTF is "Greater Texas"?

I thought Texas was already the greatest!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
WTF is "Greater Texas"?

I thought Texas was already the greatest!

The United States.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
WTF is "Greater Texas"?

I thought Texas was already the greatest!

The United States.

Im surprised there is even something "Greater" than Texas.

Its not. These are the states that texas graciously allowed to join it.

Except New Mexico. Who knew?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here we go:
http://truthinmedia.com/alabama-senate-approves-bill-to-abolish-marriage-licensing/

Alabama is getting government out of the business.

n an effort to resolve the issue in advance of a potential future in which same-sex marriages may be declared legal once again, Senate Bill 377 would remove the requirement that couples obtain a license from a probate judge and replace it instead with a contract process requiring only a signature by a notary public, clergy member, or attorney. The bill would only allow two adult parties to join in marriage and would prohibit currently-married people from marrying a second time.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not. These are the states that texas graciously allowed to join it.

Except New Mexico. Who knew?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And here we go:
http://truthinmedia.com/alabama-senate-approves-bill-to-abolish-marriage-licensing/

Alabama is getting government out of the business.

n an effort to resolve the issue in advance of a potential future in which same-sex marriages may be declared legal once again, Senate Bill 377 would remove the requirement that couples obtain a license from a probate judge and replace it instead with a contract process requiring only a signature by a notary public, clergy member, or attorney. The bill would only allow two adult parties to join in marriage and would prohibit currently-married people from marrying a second time.

"By the power invested in me by the state of Alabama, I now pronounce your marriage contract notarized."

You may now kiss the seal. Kiss IT!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think that most people understand there is a difference between being compelled to do something that is a personal sin -- for example, orthodox Jew working on the Sabbath -- and doing something that facilitates other people to do something that you feel would be a sin if you did it personally.

For example, imagine you as a Christian do not believe in Hindu marriage, since you do not believe in Hindu religion. But you are a government clerk whose job it is to register other people's marriages. It is not a religious function. If the marriage is from a different religion to yours, that is not your personal sin to register it, and you do not need to be concerned about it.

To make a really extreme example, imagine a person working on reception at an abortion clinic, who spends her lunchbreaks out the front holding a sign telling the girls walking in that abortion is a sin. She could justify that with the same logic, by saying that she believes abortion is a sin, but in her time on reception in the clinic she's only facilitating other people's choices.

Anyhow, I'm not even sure we disagree. The guy doesn't want to process the marriages of people who have a legal right to marriage. He can't do the job, so he gets dismissed.

Actually, it may be more difficult to dismiss/fire someone in this case than you think.

Often the employees may belong to a state/county employee union. When they were hired, the conditions of the job were such that there would not have been a conflict. There may well be places where the firing is not all that easy because of it.

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, it may be more difficult to dismiss/fire someone in this case than you think.

Often the employees may belong to a state/county employee union. When they were hired, the conditions of the job were such that there would not have been a conflict. There may well be places where the firing is not all that easy because of it.

Unless making the decision as to whether or not a couple should be allowed to marry based on the employee's own moral compass was a part of their employment contract, that shouldn't be an issue.

 insaniak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, it may be more difficult to dismiss/fire someone in this case than you think.

Often the employees may belong to a state/county employee union. When they were hired, the conditions of the job were such that there would not have been a conflict. There may well be places where the firing is not all that easy because of it.

Unless making the decision as to whether or not a couple should be allowed to marry based on the employee's own moral compass was a part of their employment contract, that shouldn't be an issue.

I think what's he's trying to say is that, it's very difficult to actually fire a unionize person. (private or public)

Most public jobs ARE unionized.

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, it may be more difficult to dismiss/fire someone in this case than you think.

Often the employees may belong to a state/county employee union. When they were hired, the conditions of the job were such that there would not have been a conflict. There may well be places where the firing is not all that easy because of it.

Sure, there’s always complications on the ground. Forget the union thing, he may be the only one who knows how to fix the printer, and he may bring in really nice brownies every second Friday. So instead you find some work around, transferring him to some other job, or build a process where someone else in the office will do the gay marriages.

Episcopal Church votes to permit gay weddings.
http://kxan.com/2015/07/01/episcopalians-vote-to-allow-gay-marriage-in-churches/

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Actually, it may be more difficult to dismiss/fire someone in this case than you think.

Often the employees may belong to a state/county employee union. When they were hired, the conditions of the job were such that there would not have been a conflict. There may well be places where the firing is not all that easy because of it.

Sure, there’s always complications on the ground. Forget the union thing, he may be the only one who knows how to fix the printer, and he may bring in really nice brownies every second Friday. So instead you find some work around, transferring him to some other job, or build a process where someone else in the office will do the gay marriages.

this is why the AG's advice is so confusing. The term "clerk" means two different things. There's the front desk clerk, who literally takes your money and processes the paperwork, and the County Clerk who is an elected official. In very small communities, they do both. (My wife and I got our marriage license from the Town Milo Clerk, which is such an insignificant community the munical offices are in larger town! The actual town clerk took our money, with no other real staff to farm it out to.)

the problem is that denying a person something they have a consitutional and statutory right to is actionable, so the state will have to treat lightly.

The AG may not be someone to worry about for long.
http://kxan.com/2015/07/01/ag-ken-paxtons-fraud-case-to-be-presented-to-grand-jury/

Texas my Texas!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Gay marriage = gay weddings = wedding cakes = more wedding cakes for me
IF you are against gay marriages, the by associative property, you are against cake. Which makes you a heathen.

Because this had to be quoted, hotsauceman1, you're my hero.

Also, yay for struggling equality - another one in the win column!

Looks like polygamists are beginning to que up for licenses now:

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

Relapse wrote:
Looks like polygamists are beginning to que up for licenses now:

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

They should let them marry too. If one marriage isn't enough of a challenge for them, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be legal to unlock the bonus round.

 Hordini wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Looks like polygamists are beginning to que up for licenses now:

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

They should let them marry too. If one marriage isn't enough of a challenge for them, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be legal to unlock the bonus round.

Agreed. Let them suffer for their own mistakes.

Am I the only one who notes these people always seem to have hit a few ugly trees?

As I understand it, bigamy is illegal in the whole USA and bigamistic marriages are automatically invalid, therefore the marriage licence issuing authority will be unable to issue the requested licence.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understand it, bigamy is illegal in the whole USA and bigamistic marriages are automatically invalid, therefore the marriage licence issuing authority will be unable to issue the requested licence.

Gay marriage was illegal just a few days ago.

No it wasn't, it just didn't exist..

Bigamy is different. It has existed and been illegal for a long time.

To illustrate the point, if last week you went to the tax authorities and claimed your right of free transfer of assets between spouses being gay, they would ask to see your marriage certificate and you wouldn't have one and they would tell you to piss off.

If you had been a bigamist, then on seeing your marriage certificates they would done a citizen's arrest and called the police.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No it wasn't, it just didn't exist..

Bigamy is different. It has existed and been illegal for a long time.

To illustrate the point, if last week you went to the tax authorities and claimed your right of free transfer of assets between spouses being gay, they would ask to see your marriage certificate and you wouldn't have one and they would tell you to piss off.

If you had been a bigamist, then on seeing your marriage certificates they would done a citizen's arrest and called the police.

Um no. Both were illegal. Many statues specifally excluded them. Why are you such a hater? They just want love the same as you.

Last stages of the War begins, like isolated German units being overwhelmed by Allies in the final months of Nazi existence in 1945. (hey no one has Godwinned this puppy yet!)
http://kxan.com/2015/07/02/texas-couple-to-sue-after-clerk-refuses-to-issue-marriage-license/