Reply With Quote
It's Texas, not Cuxas. OP is a got.
Not sure exactly how it violates their beliefs.
The bible is quite clear on s fish, and blended fabrics.
Does this mean that someone could decide not to issue a construction permit for a Red Lobster because it violated their religious beliefs?
Seems to me that if doing an important part of your job "violates your beliefs", you should stop doing that job, and find work more in line with your beliefs.
It's Texas, not Cuxas. OP is a got.
The PDF was an official Opinion, with a capital O. It talked about the legal mechanics and issues involved in a clerks refusal.
The whole thing read to me like a reasonable conservative trying to reassure the hysterical idiot counterparts in that half of the political spectrum that, "no, they are not going to force your pastor to perform gay marriages".
Lotta hypocrisy up in here ...
It's not the clerk that should get sued, it's the government that employs people that refuse to do the jobs they were hired to do.
What's the harm in, say, Harris County clerk A (WBC member) refusing to wed two s and then having Harris County Clerk B (also a ) issue the license? How have the s' rights been violated?
I think the question is what happens when none of the clerks want to issue the license? Are they forced to comply or?
The whole thing is false bravado anyways, as you can probably get a license in places like Austin if needed be.
In that scenario, I think they have to comply, or, find someone with authority to perform the ministerial act.
That being said, I don't see this being an issue -- there really aren't gays going out to municipalities with only 1 JP or 1 clerk to get gay married.
I think legally the question here is bigger than "wearing a burqa" or some such, where the religious objection doesn't prevent you from performing your duties. In this particular case, the objection goes directly towards performing a duty you were hired to do.
Texas is pretty big, tbh... lots of little municipalities out there.
It goes to one of many duties you were hired to do. And unless the person was hired on Friday afternoon or today, they weren't hired to issue gay marriage licenses or perform gay marriages.
Do you have a problem with giving new hires a choice to do/not do gay marriages if they have a sincere belief?
Absolutely. I just don't think there's a lot of s in said municipalities wanting to get married.
More deeply in the legal mumbo jumbo, whatever religions objections the clerks might have are between them and their church. They are acting as direct representatives of the Government.
As such, there has to be more than just religious or moral reasons for refusing to do their job, as they're effectively causing the Government to refuse to grant a fundamental right to citizens.
I do when it's a government employee, sure, in the interest of keeping Government away from religion.
I've no idea how many closeted sexuals are out there, tbh, but that doesn't mean they should be denied their right...
Well, this still doesn't address the people who were hired as of last Thursday. And I don't see how allowing a person to opt out of performing a gay marriage is tantamount to establishing a religion. I think there's case law that allows people to decline ministerial functions if it violates a "sincerely held religious belief" but it's been a while.
Closeted s don't get married though.
There might be case law on private individuals, but I'm pretty sure when it comes to government, the government itself can't claim such. Clerks are direct representatives of the State, there's no way around that. I expect any lawsuit over this to go directly at the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as FWD correctly pointed out in the other thread. By denying a marriage license solely on religious grounds, that clerk and by extension the State is forcing a religious view on the pe ioner. That another clerk might approve it is really putting lipstick on a pig, IMO.
I don't think "novelty" will be a defense, tbh... after all, what they're after is a Marriage License just like the ones that have been issued for many years, not a new instrument (ie: " Coupling License"), in that sense it doesn't matter when the clerk was hired.
They can certainly get out of the closet now, tbh, more options...
I'm 95% positive there's caselaw dealing with public employees and the RFRA, but I don't know any details one way or another. FWD would probably know though.
Disagree on your pig/lipstick assessment. s are absolutely en led to have a marriage performed now. If the municipality denies them a marriage license, then that municipality has problems. However, s do not have the right to have clerks who religiously object to gay marrying them perform the ritual or get the certificate if there is another willing clerk/JP. I think you'd be hard strained to find anything in Obergefell that suggests that not only do s have the right to marriage, they also have the right to have religiously objecting public workers perform the ritual/issue the certificate. Again, this is in the scenario where non-objecting workers are willing to step in. Frankly, in that scenario, everyone wins -- so I don't get the lipstick/pig bit.
The point about novelty was that the overwhelming majority of clerks/JPs were hired not to gay marry s. And the issue obviously is divisive. So it's a little dishonest to suggest that it was always already in their job description
I don't think "novelty" will be a defense, tbh... after all, what they're after is a Marriage License just like the ones that have been issued for many years, not a new instrument (ie: " Coupling License"), in that sense it doesn't matter when the clerk was hired.
Are you trying to tell us something here my nig?
I think he already did:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post8069818
The Obergefell decision simply says they have the same rights to Marriage as any heterosexual couple. With that in mind, it's the State's responsibility to ensure such licenses are issued. If the State can't do that, for whatever reason, then they're violating a cons utional right of the pe ioner.
Well, yeah, fruits can legally marry now. That's a new option, right?
FWIW, from what I read, Clerks "can delegate", but they don't have to. And I think these are the kind of waters that will be tested here.
I'm actually wrong about this since RFRA doesn't apply to states/municipalities. My B. Still besides the point.
I think we're saying the same thing here. s can marry, absolutely. If a clerk A doesn't want to issue the license on religious grounds, but clerk B is fine with it, and does issue the certificate, there's been no cons utional violation, right? Or are you saying that the couple has a right to insist on clerk A issuing the certificate over his religious objection? If not, then we're in agreement.
Not much to test, IMO. Clerk is a gov emoloyee. Clerk hews to gov policy. End of argument.
If the State resolves the issue internally, I don't see the problem, as long as the license issues. But I suspect some clerks might just object and not delegate over that objection. Then we'll have our first case where a License won't issue.
When that happens, I don't think the AG opinion will hold up in court.
It could make a compelling case for Abbott to rant about the big bad federal gubmint intruding on the State and the Holy Bible.
Amen
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions