refusing to facilitate marriage for religious belief

So we are starting to see legislation aimed at allowing civil workers (among others) claim religious exemption from performing same sex marriages. This rests on the idea that we should provide reasonable accommodation, which I agree with in concept.

My question is, is this reasonable in this case? Should a Catholic be allowed to refuse services to a divorced person? Should a mormon be allowed to refuse services to someone who is not marrying in the temple? Should a muslim be allowed to refuse service to a couple if the wife has not taken the muslim religion? Should a racist be allowed to refuse to marry interracial couples if he claims it to be for religious reasons? There are many different religious and personal opinions about what constitutes a marriage... is it reasonable that we accomidate for all of them? If not, then is there a good reason for accomidating just this one instance?

This argument seems to run on very thin ice, and is deeply biased to just one religious cause and not others. Ill also throw it out there that it might not just be on religious grounds... if someone can claim religious freedom, then why cant someone claim freedom of speech to claim an exemption for nonreligious reasons?

The legislation in question allows the civil servants to opt out of all marriages, not just those of their choosing, so that may help them out to get around this issue. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

http://abc11.com/politics/nc-senate-response-to-gay-marriage-rulings-is-approved/532858/

 

Perhaps religion is too deeply entangled into legal process in this regard.

Religious objectors can simply not perform marriages if they can't do so legally. It's really only a problem for them.

 

Nope, and it won't stand. If the civil workers religion prohibits them from performing the duties of their job to the extent that the public is no longer served, that civil worker is unqualified to do that job.

If all the sanitation workers suddenly decided they could not lift garbage cans with bacon in them -- whether it was a religious issue or not -- we wouldn't just let things pile up. We won't live with that garbage here either.





​

 

The bottom line is that the rights connected to religious beliefs and practice are not superior to other rights, and a religious person is not superior in the law to non-religious persons or persons of other faiths.

We should not accommodate or encourage anyone's desire to see themselves as above the law or superior to others in matters of law based on their religious beliefs.

 

So you wouldn't support other homosexuals harassing them into compliance and forcing them to marry them?

 

No, I wouldn't.

 

I don't think religious belief should justify a failure to perform a fundamental part of their job.

If someone is religious they shouldn't apply for a job where they are performing marriages for the government when they know it is likely to conflict with their religious views on a regular basis.

A Muslim wouldnt apply for a job at a pork processing facility.

Employees already in positions should be given the opportunity to be reassigned to an equal position that doesn't involve an issue if potential moral confliction.

 

I guess that depends on what you mean by harassment. I don't believe people should be "harassed", in the sense that they are threatened, property damaged, or otherwise unable to go about their daily lives. That said, people do have the right to freedom of speech and protest if they want. But while they do have that right to protest, I don't believe it would be generally helpful to the cause.

Makes sense to me. The ability to opt out of all marriages also makes sense, so long as it isn't a primary function of their job.

 

right now, the pendulum has swung toward supporting far left ideas. To try and force a JP or clergy to conduct marriage ceremonies for those living deviant sexual lifestyles is the epitome of over-reach by govt.

To try and classify how one chooses to have sex as being akin to race or gender is utterly nuts.

 

It was only a few years ago that issues like this and polygamy when brought up were brushed aside as slipery slopes that would NEVER happen. Nobody will be forced to do anything against their beliefs, polygamy.....dont be ridiculous, they said - now they straight out argue for it. How quickly it changes, which isnt surprising.

 

Saying one's sexuality is only how they have sex is desperate denial.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps religion doesn't belong in civil process.

 

An Amish person should not apply to drive a bus unless he's willing to do so, and a Jewish person should not apply to pick up trash unless he's willing to handle the pork that might be in the trash. Civil servants are required to execute their jobs equitably, whether or not their job involves facilitating personal choices that the civil servant doesn't agree with, or whether it involves race, or whether it involves whatever. Doesn't matter. Their job is to enforce and facilitate the law, not cast judgment on those who are using it.

No JP or clergy should be "FORCED" per se, but it might mean that the person is not fit for their job. Clergy are largely exempt anyway, depending on whether or not they are conducting their business within an entity that has religious exemptions (i.e. a church or a closely held personal business). I'm also sympathetic to the idea that many of these people were in their positions before marriage between same-sex couples became a thing, so I do think it is reasonable to make accommodations for them... whether that means limiting their duties, or providing them an equitable position that doesn't involve the activity they disagree with.

 

Harassment by any employee of another is not permitted. You are making up phantom situations to debate.

 

There is no kin. There is no need to be kin.

Race and gender are physical attributes...Political and religious ideologies are not...their only relationship in common is they are all protected classes and groups.

 

It's kinda scary to me that some people think the only protection we have is based on religions, race, and other such things.... that any other personal choice can be interfered with seemingly without any good reason for doing so. Want a marriage licence? too bad, I don't like that you dyed your hair pink, get out. I mean, really? What kind of short-sighted argument is that which claims that equitable treatment only matters of things which are "kin to gender or race".

 

Personally, I think a civil servant that is employed by the government which has legalized ssm, is obligated to fulfill his or her responsibilities to the employer as a part of that employment agreement. Religious entities are completely another story---they are given the authority to marry, but they are not employees of the state.

 

Nobody is talking about sex.

Your obsession and fascination wit gay sex is hilarious, and reasoning obvious.

 

I think we are pretty much on the same page then. That said, then the "employment agreement" was made, same sex marriage wasn't on the horizon for many of the involved parties... but then again, being an employee of the government comes with knowing the laws themselves will change. I do believe some reasonable accommodation can be made for the people caught up in this, but that doesn't include completely flouting the law at their own discretion because of a religious belief. It might mean changing the duties to not include marriage at all for anyone, or a different position. I would consider that to be a "reasonable" accommodation.

As for non-state employees and religious groups, that gets a little more complicated . On the one hand, I'm a strong proponent of individual liberty, and if that means you don't want to bake me a cake, then whatever. It's a two way street here to me... if I can boycott a bakery ( and I can ), then they can boycott me. But on the other hand, we have seen in the history of our country how an entire community working on concert can disparage an entire group of people. There was a time in my home city that a Black person could not get a hotel room in Vegas, severely inhibit their ability to do business. When we are dealing with a situation where discrimination is so prevalent that it turns a group of people into, de-facto second class citizens, then I think there is a case to be made for anti-discrimination laws in the public. That said, the regions that would need it most wouldn't pass such laws, and to do so federally would be over-inclusive.

This gets a little fun too.... If the authority to marry comes from the state, then they can prescribe the manner in which that authority is exercised. They can't FORCE a religious entity to marry anybody, but presumably they could require that those who have this authority must do so equitably or lose that authority. This is under the assumption that they are not entitled to have that authority in the first place, which arguably they are not... they are entitled to conduct their religious ceremony, but not necessarily to conducting the legal ceremony. Again, however, I would say that it is reasonable to allow a degree of accommodation for religious entities to discriminate as they see fit. The government has full power to provide opportunity for people to get married elsewhere.

 

Someone alert the press - we actually agree on something.

 

That's funny. Pretty rare isn't it.

 

I would imagine if gays challenge this in court, just as in the myriad of other cases, they will win. It is an issue of equal accommodation and equal protection under the law.

These types of laws will continue to be a problem in fits and starts for a few years and will gradually be slapped down. In a generation or two, the will be vestiges of the past.

 

Yes, and the state should have no involvement in marriage whatsoever.

No different tax rates (no taxes at all!), no difference in inheritance, no ability to see them in hospital more than others, no nothing. Get rid of the whole state apparatus on this issue and as many others as we can manage.

 

I tend to agree the government is more involved in marriage than it should be, but I also think it makes sense logistically that the civil contract in standardized.

That said, I don't understand the "no ability to see them in the hospital more than others". That doesn't make much sense to me, but I imagine that there's more to your position then what was briefly laid out here.

I'm also curious how a government functions without taxes, but that's probably well outside the scope of this thread.

 

I think the public interest defined by the civil rights legislation, is amply served by ensuring that equal and convenient access to service is provided. It need not be provided by a specific employee. Governments have no legitimate concern in legislating what policies an agency of government or business writes or applies to get equal opportunity or equal access. In short I have no reason to care if employers hire folks who can't or won't fulfill all aspects of a job description employers decided to write. If Jeff the conservative won't or can't, just make sure someone else will get me that license without me having to come back next Wednesday when Susan the liberal is scheduled. This is not about me forcing employers to hire and fire only folks who will get me a license as a display of submission or to force conformity as its own value. It is about me not being given my license during the hours and days advertised as open for such business to every one else.

Let Jeff the conservative recuse himself as long as it does not adversely impact me and my fiancée.

 

Why should marriage be only a religious institution?

Why should i be not allowed to be married if I am not religious?

Why are you guys so special that I can't be married to a woman that I would be in love with?