Speaking at the Values Voters Summit, what most of the GOP presidential candidates said on LGBT issues presented a rogues’ gallery, as the Washington Blade reports.
But I again take exception to this common flippancy by LGBT activists and media: “protecting religious liberty…is considered code for conservatives to mean promoting anti-LGBT discrimination.” Certainly in the case of government officials like Kim Davis and her right-wing defenders, religious liberty is misused to justify government discrimination against gay people. But in civil society there is an important right to religious dissent and noncoercion that the government can and does violate, as I’ve previously discussed (most recently here).
Both social conservatives and progressives have proved to be blind guides on this matter, ginning up hysteria and supporting the violation of individual rights for their own purposes.
77 Comments for “Religious Liberty Isn’t Just ‘Code for Discrimination’”
posted by Mike in Houston on
It’s neither flippant nor untrue that “religious liberty” is code for “freedom to discriminate” — but only by certain religious groups (e.g., evangelical dominionist Christians).
You keep beating this drum Stephen — I suppose for click-bait — but that doesn’t change the facts.
Simply listen to the VVS speakers about what they believe religious liberty means… or the testimony by the Indiana GOP in their run-up to their disastrous RFRA law… or in case you missed it: https://youtu.be/eXE8vKM7h6A
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
In some people’s world….
Religion liberty – the freedom to agree with your neighbor.
Political liberty -the freedom to agree with your neighbor.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I would like to have a serious discussion about freedom of conscience in our country, drawing sensible lines with respect to exemption from laws of general application on freedom of conscience grounds, so long as the exemptions granted are religion-neutral, issue-neutral and class-neutral. I’ve discussed this at length in other threads, and won’t repeat myself.
The current political ping-pong game over Kim Davis and hapless “bakers, florists and photographers” is anything close to a serious discussion about freedom of conscience. I know that you don’t want to believe this, Stephen, but if you don’t want to take seriously what is said by proponents (see Mike in Houston’s observation above), all you have to do to understand that the discussion is not a serious discussion about freedom of conscience is to look at what is actually proposed — “religious freedom” that protects a single religious belief (opposition to same-sex marriage), on a single issue (providing goods and services to same-sex weddings), affecting a single class of citizens (gays and lesbians).
You think it “flippant” for gays and lesbians to point out that the proposals under consideration, by confining themselves to a single issue (same-sex marriage) and a single class (gays and lesbians) promote anti-LGBT discrimination. I don’t think that it is flippant at all. When gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone, are singled out for government-sanctioned special discrimination with respect to same-sex marriages, I think that the objections are serious objections.
The issue is being driven by a single political party and is an effort to appease its conservative Christian base. The language used by proponents of the “religious freedom” strategy go to great length to stir up fear and loathing about gays and lesbians. We are described as a Robspierre-like “mob” intent on “putting Christians in jail”, “making it impossible for Christians to earn a living”, not to be content until “Christianity is outlawed in America”. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Stephen. The so-called “religious freedom” exemption is a politically-driven wedge-issue sideshow, prompted once again by the Republican Party as part of a longstanding political strategy of using gays and lesbians as cannon fodder for short-term political gain.
Whatever happened to “Value Voters Summit: Road to Nowhere”, which you posted just six days ago?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This sentence should read: “The current political ping-pong game over Kim Davis and hapless “bakers, florists and photographers” is not anything close to a serious discussion about freedom of conscience.”
posted by Lori Heine on
Why are we being lectured–again–about this issue by someone who ignores the voluminous quantity of commentary that’s gone on, on threads here, on this subject? As if we were all born yesterday, and have no understanding or experience on the subject?
Bring on a serious conversation on the issue. Please do, and by all means. No one with a functioning intellect is satisfied with the debate the way it is. That’s why so many people enjoy commenting here–because in one way or another, we are dissatisfied with both the left’s and the right’s take on the issues.
Phony-baloney, political razzle-dazzle rhetoric on an issue generates heat but no light. Several of the commenters here have made their opinions clear on the religious freedom issue. I don’t believe that any of us simply fail to care about the matter. Nor do we need, at this point, to be snapped out of some slavish devotion to either “team.”
The same drum is being beaten by this blog, over and over and over again. What are the possible ways forward? I hope this thread becomes another place where that can be discussed. Though by now, I know I’m getting tired of being dragged back to Square One.
posted by Houndentenor on
Agreed. I’m certainly not happy with how some on the left (well intentioned as they sometimes are) handle gay issues. We ought to be able to work out some compromise that is workable. Unfortunately compromise is a dirty word on the right (and not terribly popular on the left either). It does still exist in the middle which is where most elected Democrats are these days. But as we’ve learned if we move slightly to the right, the conservatives move their line even further to the right. We compromise and get nothing in return so why bother. And that’s why we’re in this mess.
I’ll say what I always say once again: I’d rather have a wedding with no cake than strong-arm a bigot into baking one. I’m not saying everyone has to feel this way but I’m well past the point in my life where I feel to justify my existence to anyone. If they don’t like me, that’s not really my problem. I do, however, expect the government and the law to treat me fairly and respectfully, something every citizen has a right to expect which is why it’s unconscionable that anyone is defending Kim Davis. But most of the GOP is. So one has to ask why any self-respecting gay person would stay in the GOP.
posted by Lori Heine on
Exactly. The social/religious right has shot its own credibility in the foot by backing Kim Davis. They can no longer criticize the left for “attacking religious freedom” and be believed about what they say.
I, too, was willing to walk down the street and get my cake baked, or my pictures taken, by a merchant who freely chose to serve me, rather than pass expanded public accommodations laws that would force bigots underground and make martyrs of them. That would have been a legitimate and reasonable compromise–in the name of religious freedom.
The social right has shown, in the Kim Davis crusade, that they are hypocrites. I tried to be a Republican for about two months. Couldn’t stand the stench. I’m a Democrat again, because at least there are still members of that party who are willing to find a reasonable compromise.
posted by Jorge on
…is considered code for conservatives to mean promoting anti-LGBT discrimination
I have never heard this sentiment expressed in seriousness by anyone further to the right than Tom Scharbach.
The code for promoting anti-LGBT discrimination that I am familiar with is “promoting moral values.”
It is not difficult to flush out the distinction. People who want to promote anti-LGBT discrimination generally aren’t shy about it. Just ask a few LGBT-rights questions. This the media always remembers to do during the debates, and quite intelligently, too, and it leads to some memorable moments. Remember, the Republican presidential candidates split on Kim Davis.
Of course, there are plenty of Republicans who are baneful moderates, people who don’t “want” to promote anti-LGBT discrimination, but will support it anyway. It suits the interests of the progressive left not to distinguish between the two. It does not suit mine.
I’ll say what I always say once again: I’d rather have a wedding with no cake than strong-arm a bigot into baking one.
How about a marriage license without the county clerk’s name on it?
I trust you’ll tell me some way “that’s different”, probably thanks to the touch of the grand sacred poo of the state.
I think that compromise, really good compromise, doesn’t happen when people renounce their passions and convictions. It happens when people honor them.
posted by MAJ on
So much word salad, as always, Jorge. I never really understand what you are trying to say. Mostly I just skip your comments. But your initial comment caught my eye when you say you “have never heard this sentiment [that religious freedom is code for conservatives promoting anti-LGBT sentiment] expressed in seriousness by anyone …”
You obviously haven’t been paying attention. As usual. Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean the rest of the world isn’t familiar with this.
Just sayin’.
posted by Jorge on
Since you know something I don’t, perhaps you could show me the decoder? But I know what it’s going to look like, you’re going to point to someone who’s either lukewarm toward gays or whose hostility far predates the emergency of the religious liberty issue.
I have been paying close attention–to both sides. I can tell a bluff or hatchet job when I see one, and I remember the order in which each shot and countershot was fired.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The code for promoting anti-LGBT discrimination that I am familiar with is “promoting moral values.”
Christian conservatives use that line a lot. Odd, isn’t it, that the folks who are so interested in “promoting moral values” by protecting the sensibilities of business owners who abhor same-sex marriage in order to “promote moral values” don’t give a fig about protecting the “religious freedom” of business owners who abhor fornication, adultery, divorce, remarriage after divorce, and so on. I suspect that has a lot to do with the observation that “religious freedom”, as hawked by conservative Christians in the last few months, “is considered code for conservatives to mean promoting anti-LGBT discrimination”. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.
posted by Jorge on
Odd, isn’t it, that the folks who are so interested in “promoting moral values” by protecting the sensibilities of business owners who abhor same-sex marriage in order to “promote moral values” don’t give a fig about protecting the “religious freedom” of business owners who abhor fornication, adultery, divorce, remarriage after divorce, and so on.
First of all, a caveat: divorce and remarriage are allowed in many denomenations of Protestantism (it’s part of the definition).
Second, to quote Justice Scalia in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, “Don’t you believe it.”
I know Tom will understand the comparison, but for those who don’t, that was Scalia’s response to the argument (I don’t remember if it was explicit or implicit) that the majority opinion outlawing sodomy bans had nothing to do with the gay marriage question. He predicted that the reasoning of one case extended to another so easily, that it was a clear tell for how the majority would wish to rule on the second.
It is much the same with moral values conservatives. Alongside opposition to abortion and gay marriage, they also oppose no-fault divorce, want the (usually if not always Protestant) Ten Commandments posted on government property, and want prayer during public school functions. These are items on the same slippery slope as the selected goals you mention, only higher, yet in some ways even more coercive.
posted by Houndentenor on
What is the point of splitting hairs? In theory there is a difference being anti-gay vs. voting anti-gay out of political expediency. In practice the results are the same so to me it’s a distinction without a difference.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm, I’m talking about the difference between being anti-gay because you hate or do not respect gay people and being anti-gay rights because you think it is not in the best interests of the country. Respect is important.
posted by Jerrelt on
The problem however, is as houndtenor commented. The end result looks the same. If someone votes to discriminate against me, I really don’t care whether it is because he hates me or because he ignorantly thins I am some person who threatens the good of the country if I should have civil rights. The end result is the same….I am denied my basic civil rights that other citizens don’t have to worry about. Be it hate, ignorance, political expediency, whatever one wants to call it, all end in the violation of my civil rights. At this point in my life I have little understanding or time for such people.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“I trust you’ll tell me some way “that’s different””…Jorge
For one thing, I don’t think Baker #1, having refused to bake a cake for me, is then going to claim that my marriage is not legal because he/she didn’t bake my cake.
(MAJ, I’ve found that reading “Jorgespeak” can be like reading Alfred North Whitehead expositions on process theology; I get the feeling that he had something in mind but he can’t quite express it with simple declarative sentences (i.e., subject + verb + direct or indirect object, modified with a few clear adjectives or adverbs). However, after working at the comprehension challenge for a long time, Alfred North Whitehead changed my life. I just don’t have the same level of commitment to translating Jorge, bless his heart.)
posted by MAJ on
I’m glad it is not just me. Oy.
posted by Jorge on
And also with yours.
posted by JohnInCA on
You know, the whole “religious liberty” thing was much easier to defend *before* Kim Davis. But “their” support for her proves this isn’t about religious liberty, this isn’t about “live and let live”, this is 100% special rights for Christians and “hurt them where we can”.
But hey, if you really think it’s about religious liberty, why not take a peek at the Megyn Kelly/Kim Davis interview?
When Megyn Kelly (of Fox News) interviewed Kim Davis, she asked if a Muslim or Catholic should be offered the same “religious liberty” that she herself was demanding.
Her answer wasn’t… direct or clear. You can look it up yourself (and indeed, others may be more favorable to that woman than myself), but it certainly wasn’t a resounding “yes”, and seemed much closer to “special rights for Christians” then any sort of equitable “religious liberty”.
posted by Jorge on
You know, the whole “religious liberty” thing was much easier to defend *before* Kim Davis. But “their” support for her proves this isn’t about religious liberty, this isn’t about “live and let live”, this is 100% special rights for Christians and “hurt them where we can”.
And it will return being to much easier to defend *after* Kim Davis.
I’ll make this observation a second time: the Kim Davis story split the Republican presidential field. It is the first and only issue under the mantra of religious liberty to do so.
Of course the far right is going use a sensationalist story to try to move the goalpost on a broader national issue in their direction. What do you expect? Are you blind to the fact that the far left is doing the same, or are you trying to hide it?
When Megyn Kelly (of Fox News) interviewed Kim Davis, she asked if a Muslim or Catholic should be offered the same “religious liberty” that she herself was demanding.
That is not the question Megyn Kelly asked. She asked a slippery slope question. I think Kim Davis answered a different slippery slope question, then stood her ground on her issue. Her second response was the correct one. It is simply not the duty of any aggrieved person to advocate for or against a slippery slope, or even to acknowledge that one exists. Their duty is to advocate for the redress or prevention of their own injury. One cannot be responsible for every imaginary Tom, Dick, and Harry that exists in any one person’s paranoid fantasies. You want to walk on eggshells, go write a religious liberty law.
posted by MAJ on
Jorge, you speak of the far right and the far left. I can name so many old white men on the far right. So many. But I’m a bit confused as to who constitutes the “far left.” Can you help me out on this? Or is “the far left” just a boogeyman you pretend exists?
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t think so. The religious right has shown their card finally. There’s no more “I’m for equal rights but not special rights” smokescreen to hide behind any more. You can’t put the mask back on after your secret identity has been revealed. Everyone has seen them for who they are. They are bigots and they can’t go back to pretending they are not. They can try, but the public isn’t buying it any more.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Maybe some people would not believe that certain code words were used to appeal to white voters who were not especially keen on the civil rights of black voters.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It is much the same with moral values conservatives. Alongside opposition to abortion and gay marriage, they also oppose no-fault divorce, want the (usually if not always Protestant) Ten Commandments posted on government property, and want prayer during public school functions. These are items on the same slippery slope as the selected goals you mention, only higher, yet in some ways even more coercive.
The “moral values conservatives” — read conservative Protestant “Bible” Christians, for the most part — have a long agenda, Jorge, as you point out. But none of it has anything to do with “religious freedom” in a broad sense. All of it is intended to advance the conservative Christian agenda.
I’ll fall over from shock if I hear conservative Christians propose posting statements from any other religion on government property alongside the Ten Commandments, and I’ll fall over from shock when I hear any of them propose allowing forms of prayer from other religious traditions (e.g. the Catholic form of the Lord’s Prayer, called the “Our Father”, the Rosary, the Shema or the Dhuhr) during public school functions.
The “religious freedom” of “bakers, florists and photographers” that has Republican cause de jure in the last couple of years, focused on a sliver of “religious freedom” — opposition to same-sex marriage — but ignoring everything else, is no different. I’ll fall over from shock when I hear a Republican legislator, a strong adherent of creating an exemption to public accommodations laws for “religious” opposition to same-sex marriage, propose/defend an exemption for a “baker, florist or photographer” who declines to provide services to a Catholic wedding so as to avoid entanglement with the “whore of Babylon”, or who declines to provide services to a mixed-race marriage because of a sincere belief that G-d intended the races to remain seperate, or who declines to provide services for a remarriage after divorce on religious grounds, or who declines to provide services to a Christian wedding, and so on.
The “moral values conservatives” use “moral values” itself as a code for “conservative Christian values”, just as they used the term “moral majority” years ago as a code for Americans aligned with conservative Christianity.
The “moral values conservatives” have made alliance with others on particular issues (e.g. with the Catholics and Mormons and ultra-Orthodox Jews on same-sex marriage) but don’t mistake those alliances for toleration or willingness to extend “religious freedom” to those others unless the “religious freedom” primarily protects their “moral values”. The “moral values conservatives” have no interest whatsoever in preserving your religious freedom, or mine, or anyone else’s.
When Megyn Kelly (of Fox News) interviewed Kim Davis, she asked if a Muslim or Catholic should be offered the same “religious liberty” that she herself was demanding. Her answer wasn’t direct or clear. You can look it up yourself (and indeed, others may be more favorable to that woman than myself), but it certainly wasn’t a resounding “yes”, and seemed much closer to “special rights for Christians” then any sort of equitable “religious liberty”.
Of course her answer waffled around and didn’t directly address the question.
Kim Davis may style herself a “just a simple country girl who loves Jesus”, but Davis has been carefully coached by the Liberty Counsel, a sophisticated conservative Christian law firm.
She is not about to let the cat out of the bag, admitting to the religious intolerance toward Catholicism, liberal Protestantism, Mormonism, Judaism or Islam, and the quest for special rights for conservative Christians, that runs to the heart of the “moral values” agenda.
posted by Houndentenor on
I hate that we have allowed bigots to debase the word values. Everyone has values. They might not be the same as mine, but everyone has them. Allowing them to own the word has allowed them to insist that they are the only ones with morals and ethics. Having lived in and out of Teabagistan I can tell you that you will hardly find a people more unethical or immoral than Evangelicals. I say this from up close and personal observation.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Anyone who dreamed that all this would stop with Kim Davis (Jorge, I’m looking at you) was unbelievably naive: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/10/kay-schwartz/
They see Ms. Davis getting away with violating a Federal Court order, and they’re now emboldened.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Indeed. We’ve got a mopping up operation on our hands, and the conservative Christian right, together with their political allies, will fight hard, dusting off the old tools.
It is nothing new. Remember Massachusetts, when Governor Romney dug in his heels and tried to enforce an old miscegenation law left over on the books from 1919 in order to keep out-of-state residents from coming to Massachusetts to marry? Now Alabama is dusting off a similar old law from segregation days to block same-sex marriage.
According to an AP story today:
Same old crowd, same old story.
posted by Houndentenor on
I said this before Obergefell. The idea that the religious right will pack up and go home is ludicrous. My hometown did not integrate the schools until 15 years after Brown v Board of Ed and other schools in our state did not do so until 1976 or later (22 years!). So it’s naive to think that social conservatives will simply comply, especially since opposition to gay marriage was their fall-back position. They really thought this one was the one they couldn’t lose. They were not prepared for this and have no back-up plan.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The backup plan is “massive resistance“, as outlined in the “Future Conference 2015”:
(1) Open Defiance;
(2) “Religious Freedom” exemptions from non-discrimination laws; and
(3) Setting up the media to trash gays, lesbians and “leftists”.
Sit back and get the popcorn. It is playing out right here on IGF, for example:
Uh, have we heard that kind of trash-talk around IGF lately?
posted by Jorge on
Kim Davis is not getting away with violating a federal court order. The highest officers of the State of Kentucky have declared that her office is issuing valid marriage licenses to gay couples.
If you seriously think I’m willing to be satisfied with the outcome for Kim Davis, I think you’re the naive one. I will not be satisfied until the civil servants (not the electeds) in New York State are afforded the same legal protections that Kim Davis has been granted.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Really? So were New York Kentucky, you would protect Kim Davis’ staff but not Kim Davis?
posted by Jim Michaud on
Jorge, Ms. Davis isn’t having her wretched ass hauled back to jail again. She’s collecting her 80k/year salary (a fortune for that part of Kentucky) while thumbing her nose at Obergefell. So, yup, she’s getting away with it. Try again, bucko.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
“religious freedom”
religious freedom, yes sire.
religious freedom for me, yes sire
religious freedom for you, f-ck np
posted by Kosh III on
Jorge said: “First of all, a caveat: divorce and remarriage are allowed in many denomenations of Protestantism (it’s part of the definition).”
Mainline churches yes, fundamentalist, and more to the point “Oneness” denominations, no.
These groups have very stern lifestyle demands: no dancing, some discourage movies and TV, women must obey the husband, jewelry is discouraged, women must wear long hair and long dresses–no pants and so on.
You need to be better informed, learn what “Holiness” means in the context of fundamentalist “Christianity.” Not everything is as it is there in whatever blue enclave you are sheltered in.
posted by Jorge on
“Michele Bachman, as president, would you be submissive to your husband?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBWe4LIX7fU
“Thank you for that question, Byron >:)
“What submission means to us, it means respect. I respect my husband, he’s a wonderful godly man and a great father, and he respects me as his wife. That’s how we operate our marriage, we respect each other, we love each other… we both have a business together and a wife together, and I’m proud of him.”
What that tells me is that Michele Bachman believes in divorce as a women’s rights issue. Now, maybe the men in her family don’t believe that, but she does.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
She’s changed her mind? Bachmann has be a longtime opponent of no-fault divorce. Interesting.
posted by Jorge on
Huh? I didn’t say anything about no-fault divorce.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Huh? I didn’t say anything about no-fault divorce.
No, you didn’t. But no-fault is the result of a hard-fought battle by women to broaden the grounds available to them for divorce, which used to require that they prove adultery or abandonment. Bachmann is part of a conservative Christian movement to return to those happy days. So much for her support for women’s rights in a divorce context.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Again, had Davies taken the position that she would not process any marriage applications, but another county employee would, her argument would have mert.
Yet, this is not the argument that she took.
posted by Jorge on
But none of it has anything to do with “religious freedom” in a broad sense. All of it is intended to advance the conservative Christian agenda…
All true. And precisely why I think it was a little dishonest of you to suggest a lack of sincerity just because there are some ostensibly religious goals they leave out.
But I’m a bit confused as to who constitutes the “far left.” Can you help me out on this? Or is “the far left” just a boogeyman you pretend exists?
It is difficult to tell the left and the far left apart, and there some good traits about the latter. There are two far-left positions I want to point out to you with regard to conscientious objections to issuing gay marriage licenses.
–The ACLU does not believe any religious accommodation should be given to anyone who does not wish to give out marriage licenses. People with this position believe such people should resign, even in cases in which someone else can do all the gay marriage licenses. “They have to obey the law,” they say. This ignores two important things: you’re dealing with the jobs and livelihoods of people who’ve been in their positions for quite some time in comparison to the recent changes in law, and may not have the resources to switch careers so suddenly. Some provision needs to me for that before forcing someone to leave their job so capriciously. Much more importantly, it ignores the clear right for employees to have accommodations for their religious beliefs.
So here’s how to tell you’re dealing with a far left position: 1) Escalation of conflict when other alternatives are available. 2) Scorched earth tactics. 3) An unwillingness to consider weighing the legitimate interests of the other party. 4) The other party has clear rights grounded in law. Very often #4 leads people to push for radical changes in law and tradition. The reasons may be quite legitimate–the far left includes some of the best intellectuals in the country. But in my political opinion, I find that the goals of the far-left quite often do not reflect what is good for everyone and best for the whole.
–Here’s another example: the pundits who are alleging Kim Davis is a hypocrite because she has been married four times, usually citing a literal interpretation of a select Biblical passage. The argument completely ignores the possibility of regret and contrition on Ms. Davis’s part. It is such a bizarre argument as to display a fundamental ignorance and disdain of Christianity. The forgiveness of and redemption for sins is an essential tenet of Christianity.
So you have a couple of things here: 1) A legitimate suspicion or hatred of a traditional system of institutional oppression (in this case political Christianity and/or organized religion). I want to make this very clear because the right in general will not recognize it. 2) The suspicion or hatred becomes more a generalized, more irrelevant hatred of everything about or related to that tradition. I suppose I could point out more features here. My point is that when you have that nutty hatred of anything related to the traditional side of the Christian faith, that’s a very strong tell of the far left.
posted by Jorge on
“Some provision needs to me for that before forcing someone to leave their job so capriciously.” >> Some provision needs to be made for that…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: But none of it has anything to do with “religious freedom” in a broad sense. All of it is intended to advance the conservative Christian agenda …
Jorge: All true. And precisely why I think it was a little dishonest of you to suggest a lack of sincerity just because there are some ostensibly religious goals they leave out.
I don’t doubt their sincerity. The conservative Christian anti-equality movement is bound and determined to deny gays and lesbians equal treatment under the law, and has been working for that end for years and years, on any front, on every front, and on all fronts. Conservative Christians have committed millions upon millions of dollars, and untold time, into the effort. Conservative Christians are not only sincere about it, but deadly earnest.
What I’ve been pointing out is that a decades long campaign to deny equal treatment under the law to brown-skinned Catholics, but no one else, is a campaign that is all about denying equality to brown-skinned Catholics, no matter how hard the campaign tries to dress it up as promoting “religious freedom”.
Oh, wait. The campaign wasn’t about brown-skinned Catholics at all. It was about gays and lesbians. That makes it all different.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Religious accommodations are: being allowed to wear religious headgear that doesn’t interfere with your job duties or safety; being allowed time away from work for religious observances that don’t interfere with the overall business; being allowed to have a bible at your desk (as long as you’re not proselytizing)…
And since you brought up them up, the ACLU has simply argued that if your job includes issuing marriage licenses, then you should do your job without prejudice — whether for same-sex couples, mixed-race couples, mixed-religion couples, etc.. Because THAT’S YOUR F’ING JOB!
If your job is to issue driver’s licenses to qualified drivers, then you issue driver’s licenses to women (even though you’re a devout Muslim that doesn’t believe women should be allowed to drive). Because THAT’S YOUR F’ING JOB!
(and this will sound very Republican) I don’t care if you’ve been in your job for a number of years… if you can’t do it as currently configured, get another job.
This isn’t a case of providing training to someone up on a new process because the technology changed… this is someone who is fully capable of performing the job and refusing to do it (for a reason that the courts have found has no merit).
posted by Kosh III on
” and may not have the resources to switch careers so suddenly. Some provision needs to me for that before forcing someone to leave their job so capriciously.”
Did we do that for the employees at Enron? MCI? TWA?
All the people cheated out of their jobs and homes thanks to the Bush Recession: Paulson, Dimon, Flud and other crooks who are still unpunished for their evil deeds?
Kim Davis and other outlaws should resign; she swore a solemn oath and then callously broke it. What did Jesus say about making a vow?
posted by Houndentenor on
I wish I could list off all the things I have done that I found reprehensible. I did them because at the time I couldn’t afford to quit, but I signed confidentiality agreements with all those employers. It was pretty bad and I found those tasks just as immoral as Kim Davis finds gay marriage. Why are her morals and ethics considered superior to mine? Either give everyone a free pass to object to any part of their job and be able to refuse to do it, or we have to accept that so long as what we are asked to do is legal (*cough* I may beat her on that count) we have to do it and if we refuse we will be fired.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The ACLU does not believe any religious accommodation should be given to anyone who does not wish to give out marriage licenses. People with this position believe such people should resign, even in cases in which someone else can do all the gay marriage licenses.
The ACLU takes the position that public officials acting in their official capacity have an obligation to obey the law and the Constitution, regardless of their First Amendment rights as private citizens. A public official acts on behalf of, and under the authority of, the government, and is bound by the obligation to (1) obey the law applicable to the performance of their duties as public officials, and (2) act in accordance with the Constitution.
The Supreme Court takes that position (Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) and numerous other cases over the years) as does Congress, which exempted government officials/employees acting in their official capacity from the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
posted by Mike in Houston on
For all the sturm & drang about what Stephen calls ‘religious liberty’, this is what LGBT inclusive public accommodations are truly about: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/10/05/3709000/hobby-lobby-transgender-discrimination/
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“So here’s how to tell you’re dealing with a far left position:” – Jorge
Every word in that paragraph sounds to me equally descriptive of a far right position, except maybe the part about scorched earth tactics. I could use some specific far left examples of that. I think I would substitute “armageddon alarm tactics” to describe far right positions. So perhaps the only recognizable distinction between far left and far right would be who sets the fire, angry progressives or an angry God.
“The forgiveness of and redemption for sins is an essential tenet of Christianity.” – mas Jorge.
That’s all well and good, but it’s news to me if Christian forgiveness and redemption exempt one from responsibility and the consequences of conscious refusal to meet One’s responsibility.
posted by JohnInCA on
So… the only identified “far left” organization is the ACLU?
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
That ACLU? Um… yeah. If that’s “far left”, the I don’t think “far left” is nearly as scary as “far right”.
posted by Doug on
The far right is not only scary that are also very dangerous and in fact not that much different than the Taliban.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The ACLU has been a far-right target for most of its existence.
Why? The far-right loves the Constitution; it just doesn’t think much of the rights the Constitution bestows on ordinary Americans when those rights get in the way of the far-right agenda.
The ACLU is (and has been for decades) a driving force in defense of religious expression and religious practice. The Liberty Counsel and ADF are posers, for all the self-righteous noise they make about themselves.
posted by Kosh III on
“The ACLU is (and has been for decades) a driving force in defense of religious expression and religious practice. ”
IIRC, the ACLU once supported Jerry Falwell in a certain case. Hardly “leftist.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Hell, the ACLU defended Westboro Baptist in the funeral and flag desecration cases.
The ACLU looks to the issue — violation of a right under the Constitution — rather than to the identity of the players, which is what makes it an important force for defense of the Constitution. The contrast with the Liberty Counsel and the ADF is striking.
posted by Jorge on
If your job is to issue driver’s licenses to qualified drivers, then you issue driver’s licenses to women (even though you’re a devout Muslim that doesn’t believe women should be allowed to drive). Because THAT’S YOUR F’ING JOB!
And if your job on an airline is to serve alcohol and you object because you’re a devout Muslim and that triggers your “Stop! Sin!!!” reflex, and your airline tells you to “DO YOUR F’ING JOB!”, guess what? *Smack-smack-smack!* You win.
So… the only identified “far left” organization is the ACLU?
…
The ACLU has been a far-right target for most of its existence.
…
IIRC, the ACLU once supported Jerry Falwell in a certain case. Hardly “leftist.”
Do you begin to understand why I always write in “word salad”, Mr. MAJ?
Because if I’m not extremely precise and measured in my comments, people will find and use the one errant example, or capitalize on one or more “trigger words” to try to knock down what I say. In this case, I did not tell you the ACLU was a far-left organization (I chose not to answer your question), but pointed to the existence of two relevant far-left positions. But that “ACLU” triggered a firestorm. “ACLU is a far-right boogeyman!” “But ACLU defends far-right bigots!”
I experience the temptation to paint things in broad generalities just like everyone else, but one instinct I have taken care to instill in myself is that I try to give specific examples when I am arguing something.
Every word in that paragraph sounds to me equally descriptive of a far right position, except maybe the part about scorched earth tactics.
Thank you 🙂
That’s all well and good, but it’s news to me if Christian forgiveness and redemption exempt one from responsibility and the consequences of conscious refusal to meet One’s responsibility.
Well, yes, why do you think Ms. Davis is standing her ground so stubbornly. You might try hitting her with the Bible’s Caesar line. (“This marriage license is issued by the authority of Federal court order.”) Oh never mind.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Standing her ground?” Jorge, bless you dear, but you need a psychiatrist.
I don’t think it does any good for anyone to argue with you; you’re too far gone in your relentless need to prove whatever the hell it is you’re trying to prove to yourself.
All the bitch needs to do is quit a job she isn’t willing to do. She has no divine right to an $80,000 a year position of power over taxpayers forced to pay her. She has made clear that she wants to invalidate ALL same-sex marriage licenses issued in her county.
Maybe we could get some Sesame Street characters to help ‘splain it to you in a catchy little song.
Whew!
posted by Mike in Houston on
Actually, Jorge — that flight attendant lost her case precisely because it was her job to serve customers drinks that included alcoholic ones.
posted by JohnInCA on
“[…] one instinct I have taken care to instill in myself is that I try to give specific examples when I am arguing something.”
Just not this time, apparently, since the only example you gave wasn’t actually an example?
As such, I’m forced to conclude that anti-abortion activists (you know, the ones that tacitly encourage bombing abortion clinics and shooting doctors) are “far left” organizations.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I did not tell you the ACLU was a far-left organization (I chose not to answer your question), but pointed to the existence of two relevant far-left positions.
The position that government officials and employees have an obligation perform the duties of their job and to treat all citizens in accordance with the law and the Constitution, and if they cannot bring themselves to do so for reasons of personal conscience, then resign, is not a “far-left” position.
Instead, it is a longstanding mainstream position, upheld by the courts and almost universally accepted by federal and state legislative and executive branches.
There’s a reason for that. Government officials and employees, when acting in their official capacity, are agents of the government, not private citizens. As agents of the government, public officials and employees hold a position of trust. As Romer v. Evans put it: “Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance.”
Remember something, Jorge: Kim Davis did not seek an accommodation in which she would not personally issue marriage licenses, but allow others in her office to do so. She forbid others in her office to do so, shutting down the marriage license process for all couples, arguing that it was a short drive to the next county. When that didn’t wash, demanded that the Governor, who does not have the requisite authority to do so, disregard the law and unilaterally issue marriage licenses that did not meet the requirements of state law. When the Governor refused do so so, rightly arguing that he had no authority to do so, she still refused to allow employees in her office to issue marriage licenses as proscribed by Kentucky law, but instead confiscated the state forms and concocted her own form, which does not meet the technical requirements of Kentucky law.
The validity of the forms is in question, a question being litigated, although the Governor and Attorney General have ordered state agencies to treat the marriages performed with the licenses as legitimate marriages. Davis, I might note, takes the opposite position, arguing that the marriage licenses being issued in Rowan County “aren’t worth the paper they’re written on”.
Davis is not seeking an accommodation for her religious beliefs in any reasonable or recognizable form. She had that opportunity at the beginning, by simply allowing Deputy Clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples, as is authorized by state law and has been the practice in her own office for a long time with respect to licenses issued to opposite-sex couples. She spurned that opportunity.
Davis self-describes herself as “a simple country girl who loves Jesus”. She’s not. She’s an anti-equality activist, worthy of Anita Bryant. When Megan Kelly asked her why she just didn’t resign, she said “If I resign, I will lose my voice”. In another part of the interview, she said that her refusal to issue licenses or let others in her office do so “has been about upholding the word of God and how God defined marriage from the very beginning of time.” Uh, huh. In her view, the County Clerk’s office in Rowan County is a platform from which she is entitled o spread the word of G-d as she understands it.
What puzzles me is how anyone with the sense that G-d gave grasshoppers buys into this nonsense.
posted by Doug on
When you live in the right wing bubble, like Stephen and apparently Jorge, you are immune to facts and common sense. That is the problem with the right wing bubble heads, facts do not matter, only their version of God matters, the facts be damned.
posted by Lori Heine on
What sort of a spoiled crybaby takes a job he or she is then unwilling to do? Furthermore, how is such a point of view conservative?
Color me confused as to why “conservatives” are buying into this. When did behaving like a prima donna and playing picky-choosy about when you would or would not do a job you expected to get a paycheck for doing start being considered harmonious with conservative principle?
When it became a way to dump on gays and lesbians, evidently.
I don’t think “self-hating” is at all an inaccurate term to apply to gays who buy into such garbage.
posted by JohnInCA on
Nah, gays and lesbians aren’t the only ones.
Remember all the mosque protests over the years? Trying to get local government officials to abuse their power to stick it to Muslims/gays/women is a pretty consistent “conservative” idea.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Not too many defenders of religious liberty were particularly upset when some Muslims suddenly found it difficult to get approval to build a mosque…..
posted by Jorge on
The position that government officials and employees have an obligation perform the duties of their job and to treat all citizens in accordance with the law and the Constitution, and if they cannot bring themselves to do so for reasons of personal conscience, then resign, is not a “far-left” position.
First of all, we not talking about personal conscience. We are talking about a conscientious religious objection consistent with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act (and in Kim Davis’s case, state laws broad enough to drive a truck through). A reasonable accommodation must be considered.
Advocating the willful disregard or dismantling of existing laws and clearly delineated civil rights in order to advance temporal political considerations is a far-left position. I am not persuaded, nor shall I be intimidated, by the fact that the battle lines are between far-right and far-left. The moderate position is first to grant the marriage licenses, and then allow the employee to remain in the same position. Only if the accommodation would create an undue burden on the employer’s ability to carry out its mission can the accommodation requirement be relinquished.
Both a state and a private employer are entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to what its essential mission is. Your argument is exactly backward in that where the employer is a public employer, the requirement for a religious accommodation is stronger, not weaker, because then it is not only the Civil Rights Act being violated by an agent acting as an employer, but the First Amendment’s free exercise clause (if not the establishment clause) is being violated by an agent acting as the government.
Even if we were talking about mere personal conscience (in which case I would agree you hold the moderate position), an employee has a fundamental right to transparency as to what are the duties and functions of their position. When an employer seeks to change the conditions of one’s employment, including one’s job duties, the employee has a right to be at the table with the employer to bargain over those changes in working conditions. If the employer suddenly changes the working conditions so as to make continued employment untenable, and refuses to attempt in good faith to come to a resolution with that employee, then that creates a hostile work environment and may, if the change is arbitrary and capricious enough, entitle the employee to some kind of restitution from that employer. The fact that the employer is a government impacts only the employer’s duty to the client, not its duty to the employee.
If you find my position to lack reason or sensibility, then my strong suggestion to you is that you consider that the sensibilities of the masses are not always sensible.
Actually, Jorge — that flight attendant lost her case precisely because it was her job to serve customers drinks that included alcoholic ones.
I can’t find this. Could you point it out to me? I also can’t find more than one such flight attendant that’s ever existed (oops). But I did find an EEOC lawsuit against an employer for terminating Muslim employees who refused to deliver alcohol, which goes further. Nope, I can’t find a decision on that case, either.
http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm
posted by Lori Heine on
Conscientious objectors do not join the military, and then refuse to serve. They avoid military service.
Jorge, your opinions on this issue are simply ignorant. Why don’t you learn something about the history of conscientious objection in this country before confusing it with the fraud Kim Davis is running now?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
First of all, we not talking about personal conscience. We are talking about a conscientious religious objection consistent with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act (and in Kim Davis’s case, state laws broad enough to drive a truck through). A reasonable accommodation must be considered.
You are really grasping at straws, Jorge, trying to find daylight between religious conscience and personal conscience. Unfortunately for you, the court cases all involve religious objection, and the RFRA exemption does, too. You can nit-pick until your fingers are raw and bleeding, but it won’t change the facts.
If you find my position to lack reason or sensibility, then my strong suggestion to you is that you consider that the sensibilities of the masses are not always sensible.
No, I think that it is personal to you, Jorge.
posted by JohnInCA on
I’d like to point out that an accomodation that requires millions of dollars in expenditure, like the one Davis sought, is not “reasonable”. She really is demanding that the governor call a special session just to change the law because the current situation – her office giving out forms without her name anywhere on them – is not good enough for her (her legal team insists they’re invalid).
*that* is what you’re defending. Someone that not only doesn’t want to do *her* job, not only doesn’t want her *employees* to do *their jobs*, but doesn’t acknowledge that it is *possible* for her office to do it’s job unless millions of dollars are spent to change the law just for her.
As to your notion of how employees should be able to renegotiate every change in their duties… no. That’s stupid. Cops don’t get to sit down and renegotiate every time the city or state passes a new law. Soldiers don’t get to negotiate their participation in any specific war. Lawyers don’t get to debate with the Bar everytime there’s a new major precedent-setting case, I didn’t get to renegotiate when we started military action in Syria, and Ms. Davis doesn’t get to renegotiate when the SCOTUS declares marriage bans unconstitutional.
These are all changes that, while they cannot be perfectly predicted, are the sorts of things that come with the job. When you swear that oath you don’t freeze-frame the current socio-political legal climate, and only have to stand by that forevermore. You accept things as they are and everything that comes. And if things reach a point where you can’t serve anymore? You resign.
That’s part of the deal.
posted by Lori Heine on
Best explanation I’ve seen of the matter so far!
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“Advocating the willful disregard or dismantling of existing laws and clearly delineated civil rights in order to advance temporal political considerations is a far-left position” – Jorge
How is that a far left position rather than a far right position?
“The fact that the employer is a government impacts only the employer’s duty to the client, not its duty to the employee.” – mas Jorge
Kim Davis is an elected official. I’m told that IRS treats elected officials as employees for purposes of taxation, they are not employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. So if she is not an employee, is she covered by benefits of any accommodation laws? I don’t know and perhaps one of the legal contributors can answer that, but it does seem like Jorge is stretching pretty far to press his position….kind of like those far left (or far right) positions he keeps harping on. Although he says he is not persuaded by or intimidated by extreme positions on either right or left, he seem unwilling to consider the moderate position that he just might be mistaken about both.
posted by Jorge on
You are really grasping at straws, Jorge, trying to find daylight between religious conscience and personal conscience.
No, I am directly citing both the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
Conscientious objectors do not join the military, and then refuse to serve. They avoid military service.
It is funny for you to say that my opinions are ignorant when you posts facts that are simply untrue. Conscientious objectors can and do receive “conscientious objection discharge”. Your “sincere” objection to participating in war could come from your “religious training and/or belief”, which could include your experiences in the military or other life experiences. Kim Davis supposedly converted four years before this all happened, but here we’re talking about giving this benefit to people who experienced conversion even after they entered the military.
http://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/topic/conscientious-objection-discharge#topic-the-guide-for-cos-in-the-military
“Those applying for CO status are required to answer essay questions about their life and beliefs, and it’s probably more writing than you normally do. Remember: you’re trying to convince the military to release you after they’ve spent thousands of dollars training you. You will need to write more than seven paragraphs to convince them!”
And, not all of them resign. “If your application is approved, you will be discharged (or reclassified as a non-combatant if that’s what you applied for)”
Does that change your position, Lori?
How is that a far left position rather than a far right position?
I have a hard time understanding your question. I mean I’ve heard gay marriage called a conservative position before, but never far-right. I do tend to consider the gay rights movement to be a progressive movement, and that places it on the left rather than right. If you want to suggest that the people who want Kim Davis to resign are actually on the far right, eh, it makes no difference to me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: You are really grasping at straws, Jorge, trying to find daylight between religious conscience and personal conscience.
Jorge: No, I am directly citing both the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
Whatever. The principle that public officials, in their capacity of public officials, are expected to do their jobs holds even if limited to personal religious conscience, as I noted in my earlier comment. You might be interested in taking a look at Rodriguez v. Chicago (7th Circuit 1998).
posted by M on
And continually doing so incorrectly.
Davis’s private, personal beliefs are covered by the First Amendment. But when she steps into her official role, she is no longer a private citizen—she is now an agent of the government. And the same First Amendment that protects her private freedom of religion bars the government from having any official religious beliefs.
And this whole conscientious objector thread denigrates the true meaning — and is frankly insulting.
Davis wasn’t conscripted into being County Clerk. She ran for the job.
She was given every opportunity to have her beliefs “accommodated”, but refused… and continued (and continues) to interfere with the deputy clerks who are actually fulfilling their duties.
But I’m through arguing this with you… and will let you go back to your word salad bubble.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Davis wasn’t conscripted into being County Clerk. She ran for the job.
Really? I thought Jesus conscripted her. Or maybe convicted her. Whatever. She apparently believes that it is her job, as County Clerk of Rowan County, to enforce God’s law. She’s dead wrong about that, but what the hell.
At the time she ran for office, Davis knew (or should have known, if she had the IQ of a gnat) that Kentucky would be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and that issuing the licenses would part of her job as County Clerk.
Davis filed papers to run for the office of County Clerk after two (not one, but two) judgements were issued in federal court ordering Kentucky to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Although the decisions were on appeal to the 6th Circuit, Davis had no reason to believe that Kentucky would not be required to issue licenses in the future, given that court after court, and circuit after circuit, affirmed marriage equality.
The 6th Circuit, which became the exception to that unbroken string of courts ordering marriage equality, did not rule until November 6, 2014, two days after Davis was elected clerk on November 4, 2014.
So let’s look at this: When Davis filed to run, she had been a Deputy County Clerk, employed by her mother, for 25+ years. She knew, or should have known, that issuing marriage licenses was a function of the job. When Davis filed to run, Kentucky had lost two cases fighting marriage equality, and although the orders were stayed, Kentucky was under court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Between the time when Davis filed to run, and the election on November 4, 2014, three Circuit Courts of Appeal had issued marriage equality rulings, and the Supreme Court had denied cert in all three cases, long before the election. The 6th Circuit had not yet issued the outlier opinion that was eventually heard by the Supreme Court.
Davis had absolutely no sound reason to believe that marriage equality would not become the law in Kentucky, and soon. She filed papers having good reason to believe that marriage equality was coming, and she stayed in the race after the Supreme Court’s cert denials made that result almost dead certain.
Davis, knowing the train was coming down the track, started raising a ruckus in January 2015, almost six months before the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell. She kept it up over the months before the Supreme Court decision.
And now she claims that the conditions of her job changed on her, and she was taken completely by surprise, blindsided?
What crap.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Does that change your position, Lori?”
No, it does not. Kim Davis is an agent of the government, officially wielding government power at taxpayer expense. She must do her job or resign. Your flaky, half-baked views won’t change a court’s mind, either.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Jorge,
I’ve read the numerous comments to this point, and I understand the frustration many here have with your writing.
When you note the CO issue in the military – it would seem, imo, to reinforce what everyone else here has been noting.
That if you file to be a conscientious objector – you do not get to keep your current position in the military. You are either discharged – or, if you request it, you are assigned to a non-combatant role. You note that fact in your above quote.
Do you not see the parallels? If Kim Davis is a ‘conscientious objector’ – then she should either resign, or seek assignment in another position. (Which, since she is an elected official, would not apply. But she could allow accommodations in other fashions, which she has refused to do.)
Davis was offered the option to have her deputy officials issue the licenses. She refused that option. If she won’t accept any reasonable accommodation, then she should resign. If her objectives were actually ones of ‘conscientious objection’.
A CO in the military is not trying to stop the military from performing its duties. The CO is standing up for their own individual belief, and either leaving the military, or requesting assignment wherein they perform duties that do not conflict with the base of their objections.
Imo, Davis’ demands for accommodation are not sincere ones – they are meant to derail the marriage process for same sex couples. Not serve both the Constitution and her own religious beliefs. Both have to be met. And she does not want the former to happen.
posted by Jorge on
Do you not see the parallels? If Kim Davis is a ‘conscientious objector’ – then she should either resign, or seek assignment in another position. (Which, since she is an elected official, would not apply. But she could allow accommodations in other fashions, which she has refused to do.)
Davis was offered the option to have her deputy officials issue the licenses. She refused that option. If she won’t accept any reasonable accommodation, then she should resign. If her objectives were actually ones of ‘conscientious objection’.
It boils down to this: she got jailed. Now she’s out of jail and the deputies are issuing the licenses. That’s not what me and the other posters are arguing about.
I’m sympathetic to her, the other posters are not, there’s questions about her compliance with the current order, there’s questions about her motivations, that’s not really what we’re arguing about.
“She should either resign, or seek appointment to another position.” That is the heart of the dispute. I say Why should she, if “she could allow accommodations in other fashions”? If she can be offered the option of having her deputies issue the licenses? And I assert in no uncertain terms that she has a constitutional right to those resolutions. To assert otherwise a radical and extremist position.
Of course the other posters are going to have a problem with me calling their position radical and extremist. What do you expect? I don’t do it lightly.
posted by JohnInCA on
You keep ignoring that she *refused* the accommodations.
It is her lawyers argument that the licenses handed out while she was in jail are invalid. It is her lawyers argument that the licenses handed out now, after she changed the forms, are invalid.
To put this into a more typical “religious accommodation” story, she isn’t asking to get Saturdays off so she can go to temple, she isn’t even asking for her store to close on Saturdays, she’s *demanding* that *every* store close on Saturdays, and that nothing less is sufficient.
And you’re still ignoring that oath-takers don’t get to freeze-frame things when they take their oath. You have this frankly bizarre notion that when you take an oath the world freezes and you get to renegotiate (complete with a severance package) every time the situation changes.
Do you think after the armed forces were desegregated anyone got an honorable discharge because they were opposed to integration on religious grounds (and there were plenty that did)? Think any grunt got reassigned to a different unit when he got a female CO because Timothy 2:12 is super-important? Think any Mormon cops in Colorado or Washington went on enforcing the old pot laws, because their religion is against such things? Think there’s some cop in Alabama still doing sting operations to catch gay men after Lawrence v. Texas?
Of course not†! Because that’s not how oaths or jobs *work*.
________
†Well, actually, the last one did happen. The DA kept throwing out the cases, but the cops were arresting men for sodomy. Not *public* sodomy, mind you, just sodomy.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“She should either resign, or seek appointment to another position.” That is the heart of the dispute. I say Why should she, if “she could allow accommodations in other fashions”? If she can be offered the option of having her deputies issue the licenses? And I assert in no uncertain terms that she has a constitutional right to those resolutions. To assert otherwise a radical and extremist position.
The problem, Jorge, is that your description does not fit with the facts. She does not have her deputies issuing marriage licenses that meet the requirements of law. She has a Deputy Clerk issuing a doctored-up license that does not comply with the requirements of Kentucky law, and issuing the doctored-up, non-compliant license as a Notary Public, not as a Deputy Clerk.
Davis asserts that the licenses being issued “aren’t worth the paper they are printed on”. Her lawyers, the Liberty Counsel, asserts that the licenses being issued are invalid. Although the Kentucky Governor and Kentucky AG have ordered state agencies to treat the licenses as valid, Davis and her lawyers are probably right. The licenses being issued are not in the form required by Kentucky law, and are not issued by a County Clerk or Deputy County Clerk, as required by law.
So how does tolerating, against her will, the issuance of marriage licenses that she considers invalid constitute an accommodation in which Davis does not issue valid licenses, but her Deputy Clerks do? Davis, in the half-dozen lawsuits she’s brought, does not assert or admit that her office is issuing valid marriage licenses. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Of course the other posters are going to have a problem with me calling their position radical and extremist. What do you expect? I don’t do it lightly.
Go right ahead, Jorge. Your position speaks for itself.