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.

 Smacks wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Then quit. Do your job or quit.

Agreed. I don't understand how the issue can be any more complex than that.

I actually disagree. Even though I agree she is being an asshat. Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination. For example, Sikhs and Muslims are often exempt from beard and hat regulations which would conflict with their faith. I don't think it would be fair to just disregard their beliefs by saying "If you don't want to shave, don't do the job".

However, I don't think religion can be used as a catch-all "do whatever the hell you want", especially when that means discriminating against others.

I think she has a case, I don't think it's a very good case. It would be much stronger if she could propose a satisfactory solution that would allow her to do her job, better than just "no one can get married anymore". Hopefully, it will be decided that she is not being discriminated against, at which point, I think it would be fair to say "do the job, or get out".

A Sikh is required by his religion to wear a turban. A Christian is not required by her religion not to issue civil marriage licences to gay people.

If your job is issuing marriage licences and you decide not to issue any licences to anyone to avoid "discrimination" you should expect to lose it for the simple reason that the county isn't going to pay a marriage licence clerk to sit there not issuing licences.

Just to mention it, I highly doubt here is any County Clerks office in the US that has no duties other than issuing marriage licenses. Delegation of duties is a reasonable option here, its just an option that Kim Davis has apparently rejected.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination.

So what is it called when you refuse to do your job, that you voluntarily entered, based entirely on religious beliefs?

Quitting.

It's called quitting.

 kronk wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Forcing someone to choose between their job and their faith is often considered discrimination.

So what is it called when you refuse to do your job, that you voluntarily entered, based entirely on religious beliefs?

Quitting.

It's called quitting.

Esshhhh if she is fired.....can she sue based on that? I don't see her quitting

 Kilkrazy wrote:

A Sikh is required by his religion to wear a turban. A Christian is not required by her religion not to issue civil marriage licences to gay people.

In US First Amendment law, that's not the analysis that matters, because it's not the role of the court to decide what is and isn't a requirement of any given religion. To be sure, generally and consistently held beliefs of major world religions tend to be more readily accepted, but that's not the goal.

The real analysis is that a Sikh's turban doesn't infringe on anybody else. There are places that have rules against headgear, but there is a balancing test between the validity of the business/government interest in no headgear vs. the belief. the courts, in their genuine wisdom, know that a lot of rules exist for very minute justifications, and that allowing them to be bent for religious reasons makes sense. For example, the military requires all men to be clean shaven, ostensibly to allow for better fit on gas masks. However, they've long allowed health exceptions, and I'm reasonably certain they allow religious exemptions as well.

 Jihadin wrote:
Mail Room Bound I Say!!!!

I'd rather she was in the unemployment line at worst... Maybe she should work at DMV.

I've yet to be at one where the clerks weren't pissed at the world (even when they've literally just opened). But then we might run into this same shenanigans, "I can't issue a drivers license to a [bundle of sticks] due to my religious beliefs."

 kronk wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Source

Kim Davis, the clerk in Rowan County, who says her Christian faith bars her from authorizing same-sex marriages, has refused to issue any licenses, either to same-sex or heterosexual couples.

Then quit. Do your job or quit.

Only god can officiate marriage, so she should not even be doing that job if she is a real christian

I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.

Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.

 kronk wrote:
I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.

Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.

My wife found our officiate on the internet, and while she claims to be a non-denominational minister, it wasn't until after our wedding that we realized that she never said "Christian minister." There's a pretty good chance we were married by a pagan priestess, based on her tattoos and symbolism.

 kronk wrote:
I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.

Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.

We did the JoP thing too. Easy -peezy-lemon-squeezy. We were, however, made to repeat the common Christian marriage oath, which seemed odd to me, but we'd married each other years before, and were really just there for the license, so I didn't let it bother me or make an issue of it or anything, and maybe one day I can cash in on my wifes oath to "obey" me.

 Polonius wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.

Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.

My wife found our officiate on the internet, and while she claims to be a non-denominational minister, it wasn't until after our wedding that we realized that she never said "Christian minister." There's a pretty good chance we were married by a pagan priestess, based on her tattoos and symbolism.

You're first child might have horns and smell of brimstone!

 kronk wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.

Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.

My wife found our officiate on the internet, and while she claims to be a non-denominational minister, it wasn't until after our wedding that we realized that she never said "Christian minister." There's a pretty good chance we were married by a pagan priestess, based on her tattoos and symbolism.

You're first child might have horns and smell of brimstone!

Or incense and petrulli oil.

Jihadin wrote:she does not have a leg to stand on nor a kickstand for an assist.

I have seen this phrase before, but I'm totally using it from now on.

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.

Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.

We did the JoP thing too. Easy -peezy-lemon-squeezy. We were, however, made to repeat the common Christian marriage oath, which seemed odd to me, but we'd married each other years before, and were really just there for the license, so I didn't let it bother me or make an issue of it or anything, and maybe one day I can cash in on my wifes oath to "obey" me.

You got your wife to promise to obey? That got cut from our vows. I’m not sure if it was the minister or The Wife who suggested dropping it. The minister was a woman chaplain of a liberal arts college, so very relaxed about a lot of things. I tried to get “obey” replaced with “bake cookies for” but that didn’t fly for the official oaths. I did get that included in a pre-nup, where The Wife is obligated to make a certain number of batches a year, and I owe her a certain number of back rubs. The exact number escapes me, I’d have to look it up.

 Nevelon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I had a justice of the peace do the need. No reason to bring God into it. Just paperwork from the courthouse and an old dude.

Oh, and my loving wife and our families. Them too.

We did the JoP thing too. Easy -peezy-lemon-squeezy. We were, however, made to repeat the common Christian marriage oath, which seemed odd to me, but we'd married each other years before, and were really just there for the license, so I didn't let it bother me or make an issue of it or anything, and maybe one day I can cash in on my wifes oath to "obey" me.

You got your wife to promise to obey? That got cut from our vows. I’m not sure if it was the minister or The Wife who suggested dropping it. The minister was a woman chaplain of a liberal arts college, so very relaxed about a lot of things. I tried to get “obey” replaced with “bake cookies for” but that didn’t fly for the official oaths. I did get that included in a pre-nup, where The Wife is obligated to make a certain number of batches a year, and I owe her a certain number of back rubs. The exact number escapes me, I’d have to look it up.

We only met the judge 2 minutes before he legally married us. It was very "in and out", no pun intended. Raise your right hand, repeat after me, I now pronounce you man and wife, have a great day!....it reminded me of the oath I took for the Navy. To his credit, the judge did ask if we had oaths prepared, but it was all just a paper exercise for us to get her on my health insurance, so we just went along with the classic oath. We'd been "non-legally" married for years, and likely could legally be described as having a common-law marriage (although I don't know how common-law marriages work in the state in which I reside).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
After looking it up, common law marriage does not exist in my state.

 Polonius wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

A Sikh is required by his religion to wear a turban. A Christian is not required by her religion not to issue civil marriage licences to gay people.

In US First Amendment law, that's not the analysis that matters, because it's not the role of the court to decide what is and isn't a requirement of any given religion. To be sure, generally and consistently held beliefs of major world religions tend to be more readily accepted, but that's not the goal.

The real analysis is that a Sikh's turban doesn't infringe on anybody else. There are places that have rules against headgear, but there is a balancing test between the validity of the business/government interest in no headgear vs. the belief. the courts, in their genuine wisdom, know that a lot of rules exist for very minute justifications, and that allowing them to be bent for religious reasons makes sense. For example, the military requires all men to be clean shaven, ostensibly to allow for better fit on gas masks. However, they've long allowed health exceptions, and I'm reasonably certain they allow religious exemptions as well.

However, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from following a religious doctrine, which she, as a representative of the government, is doing.

The Bible also does not specifically ban gay marriage. Marriage =/= sex (in fact, as that old saw goes, marriage almost immediately means an end to sex). So she isn't even consistent in her beliefs... and, in the news photos I've seen of her, she's been wearing blended fabrics, which is also a sin.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

A Sikh is required by his religion to wear a turban. A Christian is not required by her religion not to issue civil marriage licences to gay people.

In US First Amendment law, that's not the analysis that matters, because it's not the role of the court to decide what is and isn't a requirement of any given religion. To be sure, generally and consistently held beliefs of major world religions tend to be more readily accepted, but that's not the goal.

The real analysis is that a Sikh's turban doesn't infringe on anybody else. There are places that have rules against headgear, but there is a balancing test between the validity of the business/government interest in no headgear vs. the belief. the courts, in their genuine wisdom, know that a lot of rules exist for very minute justifications, and that allowing them to be bent for religious reasons makes sense. For example, the military requires all men to be clean shaven, ostensibly to allow for better fit on gas masks. However, they've long allowed health exceptions, and I'm reasonably certain they allow religious exemptions as well.

However, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from following a religious doctrine, which she, as a representative of the government, is doing.

The Bible also does not specifically ban gay marriage. Marriage =/= sex (in fact, as that old saw goes, marriage almost immediately means an end to sex). So she isn't even consistent in her beliefs... and, in the news photos I've seen of her, she's been wearing blended fabrics, which is also a sin.

It worries me you actually looked up a picture of her....

Look it up? No, but I watch TV and read the news. This has been all over the place the last couple of weeks. Not sure how anyone has avoided seeing pictures.

Sometimes, I really wish there was some kind of reputation system on Dakka. I think every one of Polonius' posts in this topic has been both informative and worthy of an exalt.

 Psienesis wrote:

However, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from following a religious doctrine, which she, as a representative of the government, is doing.

Yeah, that's an interesting argument, but probably not one the courts would be wild about. I mean, the problem isn't that she's establishing religion, its that she's defying the highest law of the land.

That the ACLU will make that argument in their civil action against the county should probably be a factor in the decision making, but frankly a government official refusing to follow the law is usually enough to get trouble.

The Bible also does not specifically ban gay marriage. Marriage =/= sex (in fact, as that old saw goes, marriage almost immediately means an end to sex). So she isn't even consistent in her beliefs... and, in the news photos I've seen of her, she's been wearing blended fabrics, which is also a sin.

Sure. I think every vaguely literate person has made or refuted that argument plenty of times.

The thing about American Religious freedom is that nobody gets to tell you how to follow your religion. That is, in fact, the core of the First Amendment: that the government cannot say "the Bible says this, so you must do that to be a Christian." That is literally what the Amendment (and much of the colonization of the US) was about in the first place.

What is interesting about the Establishment Clause is that originally it was put in the Bill of Rights in part to protect the States which had state religion from the Feds.

 CptJake wrote:
What is interesting about the Establishment Clause is that originally it was put in the Bill of Rights in part to protect the States which had state religion from the Feds.

As always, blame the 14th Amendment.

 Polonius wrote:
As always, blame the 14th Amendment.

Whenever a food establishment gets my order wrong I always do.

Do religious people in the USA consider a civil marriage to be the same as a marriage of their own religion?

To be precise, if you are a Shintoist, there is a Shinto marriage ceremony that you do to get married in the "real" sense. Is this the same thing as registering your marriage with the civil authorities?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do religious people in the USA consider a civil marriage to be the same as a marriage of their own religion?

To be precise, if you are a Shintoist, there is a Shinto marriage ceremony that you do to get married in the "real" sense. Is this the same thing as registering your marriage with the civil authorities?

It varies by state, but nearly all ordained ministers have the authority to sign and file a marriage license. The license is usually issued by a clerk, and then signed by an officiant (either a minister or justice of the peace). So for most people, the religious and civil ceremonies are simultaneous. In Michigan, the couple signs the license with the witnesses, usually before or after the ceremony, to make it official. In New York, the officiant handles everything after you procure the license from the Clerk.

Most faiths will only marry people that can be legally married, with the prior exception for homosexual couples in some churches. Other faiths will marry people in the faith, regardless of the legality of the marriage (religious polygamy comes to mind).

My wife and I got married at Lake Tahoe... The judge asked if we wanted to do the more "traditional vows" part.. she did... so of course, we had to do that whole ceremony bit. Otherwise we woulda been married in his office, surrounded by baseball memorabilia instead of my now inlaws

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
My wife and I got married at Lake Tahoe... The judge asked if we wanted to do the more "traditional vows" part.. she did... so of course, we had to do that whole ceremony bit. Otherwise we woulda been married in his office, surrounded by baseball memorabilia instead of my now inlaws

He have any great one's? I did the Court Clerk marriage. Did not feel like a big wedding....being divorce twice and on my third marriage (married my third time) do far so good but she has been watching a lot of "Snap" crime/drama shows......

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do religious people in the USA consider a civil marriage to be the same as a marriage of their own religion?

To be precise, if you are a Shintoist, there is a Shinto marriage ceremony that you do to get married in the "real" sense. Is this the same thing as registering your marriage with the civil authorities?

This very much depends on what state you live in. I am an ordained minister (of 2 different religions), but in WA state, until you have your license and paperwork from the county & state, it doesn't matter how many vows you take or how many times I pronounce you whatever-and-whatever... you're not married until you have that government paperwork.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do religious people in the USA consider a civil marriage to be the same as a marriage of their own religion?

To be precise, if you are a Shintoist, there is a Shinto marriage ceremony that you do to get married in the "real" sense. Is this the same thing as registering your marriage with the civil authorities?

I can't speak for other religions, but I know mine doesn't consider it the same. That being said, the couple is still recognized as married.

 Jihadin wrote:

He have any great one's?

He was a Giants fan... I do recall seeing a couple Bonds' things around. There were a bunch, like a dozen or so autographed baseballs, so I would imaging that he had a Mays or McCovey in amongst them.