refusing to facilitate marriage for religious belief

To be fair he's asking if legislation should be passed which allows people to exercise these exemptions in paid, public capacities? My thought is no but in private capacities within their religious organizations my thought (and the legal reality) is yes.

It's not just an up or down question. It's a valid concern questioning a real, impending legislation. That's not fauxrage, it's civic mindedness.

 

And this, I would agree, would be the objective of reasonable accommodation. If accommodating "Jeff the conservative" in this way is a minor issue which creates little hardship to work around, then that's fine in my opinion. But is this the case?.... in smaller counties and jurisdictions, there may only be 1 or 2 people who's job it is to provide a license at any given time, in which case this may become more of an unreasonable accommodation which no longer provides equitable treatment to you and your fiancee. It may become even more complicated if employees insist on a variety of different "accommodations" beyond just this one. At what point does it become ok to accommodate for one, bot not another? Is it fair to pick and choose which can and cannot be, and on what basis? I will agree that these are questions for each individual office to decide what can and cannot be reasonably accommodated for, and there are different ways that it may be taken care of.

 

To be clear, and to affirm what others have pointed out, I was referring specifically to state employees who are responsible for providing licenses. The question I was trying to raise is what would be a "reasonable accommodation" for a state employee whose job it is to provide marriage licenses. Would it be a "reasonable accommodation" for a state employee whose job it is to provide marriage licenses to refuse to provide them to divorced people because of their Catholic belief? etc, etc, etc. I apologize for the lack of clarity in the OP, I hope this helps clear up the misunderstanding.

I believe we're pretty much on the same page with regard to private individuals, organizations and businesses.... well maybe not, but that wasn't really the question I was getting at.

 

You're a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, aren't you?

 

Understood now. Thanks for clarifying.

Not that anyone cares, but for the record, I feel a state employee represents the state. So what's legal in the state needs to be treated as such by it's employees. There are other jobs if one would feel more comfortable elsewhere.

However.... if a state employee has an objection to something, and I mean anything, I feel they should have the right to opt out... if there is someone else in that position to provide the same service. The state should then assess if the issues are valid enough for the person to keep their job.

I'm not one of those that thinks one's religion should allow people to push their way around in life.
But, I also support one's right to believe, and live however they wish, as long as it's not hurting others.

I support a gay baker who refuses to serve a wedding cake to the Westboro Baptist kooks.
I do not support the right of a Westboro Baptist kook carrying signs saying "God Hates" anything... especially outside the funeral of a homosexual, or a soldier, or whatever.

Extreme examples, but just an attempt at explaining.

 

would you like an answer or do you just feel better getting that off of your chest?

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

But you know what the irony is?

Protestants who are very hostile and prejudiced towards the catholic Church don't realize that when they support marriage and use the rituals, theya re using the catholic rituaks

 

Yes I would like an answer to that.

You're already sounding a lot like them to me.

 

I don't see what a young religion affirming a civil law has to do with my statement.

 

You asked the question, i was simply trying to give you an answer for it.

Was it rhetorical?

 

Your answer is wrong.

 

No, it was the Catholic Church that first defined marriage this way, and that article shows their justification for why they did.

And [lease, keep in mind about how i feel about all religious people who claim that only they can be right.

However, this was not about being right or wrong, just trying to show you how religion got involved, is all.

 

So it was the Catholic church that first redefined marriage. I don't see hire their redefining of it has any place in this conversation.

Marriage was a civil institution long before the Catholic church meddled with it.

I don't see why your opinion of religious people is relevant.

Religion at one time and still currently in places in the world dictate civil law. But it doesn't mean that it created civil law.

 

THe relevance is you were asking how religion got into marriage first, but you're alosi missing a point I was trying to make.

Marriage existed before the Catholic Church, but it was the Catholic Church that first defined marriage as solely being between a man and a woman and a sac red covenant unto God.

And the relevance here is that this is the influence in why some people resist homosexual marriage, as in "it's Adam and Eve, not Afam and Steve". A lot of people don't realize that it is actually this that has influenced their resistance based on their religion.

The relevance may not be for you, but what you don't know about me is i'm a voracious reader and read a lot of things about religion. There is a lot of infighting between religion over scripture and what it means, and EVERYONE SINGLE one is very adamant that they, and only they, have the one true correct interpretation of scripture.

And the relevance to is, is that you are being the same. You are very adamant that homosexuality is not mentioned in the Bible in any capacity. I don't know how many books you've read and by whom, but, a well rounded opinion considers all opinions and interpretations, looks into the history that is driving and influencing them, and continues from there. Those who disagree you are equally adamant that you are wrong. Myself included, but not limited to myself.

For instance, on those books you've read, have you ever considered looking at the people who disagree with them?

Also have you read anything from before protestantism when there was only the Catholic Church, such as say, by Thomas Aquinas? What about the 95 Thesis that Martin Luther wrote and pinned to the door that started the entire can of worms that led to protestant protest of the Catholic church?

Everything has an origin, and a starting point. Most people get so caught up in the moment of things and lose sight of that and don't really understand where things come from.

And at least to me, it is important to know. However, I couldn't tell you why. For myself, i have a very strong curiosity about things and will read books of all sorts from different points of view to see, kearn and udnerstand.

That's the relevance.

Especially in Christianity.

Religion does have a huge influence on people, sometimes they don't know, see or fully understand what that influence comes from or where it started and the proper context.

And where things start is what sheds meaning and light on things.

 

You are correct, you answered the question I asked. My apologies. I was thinking you responded to something else.

 

Thank you for admitting that. I appreciate it.