Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 01-03-2002, 12:13 PM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56956-2002Jan3.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56956-2002Jan3.html</a>

Note how clerks can appoint assistants to hand out civil union documents if the clerks themselves don't want to for religious reasons. They believe in Jesus, so they can discriminate.

Michael

Toto · 01-03-2002, 01:32 PM

Quote:

The justices did not rule directly on the claim that the law violates town clerks' religious beliefs. But it described as "highly questionable" the "proposition that a public official ... can retain public office while refusing to perform a generally applicable duty of that office on religious grounds."

Also, the court said the law accommodates the town clerks' concerns by explicitly permitting them to appoint an assistant to issue the licenses. [emphasis added]

Once again showing that if your prejudices belong to a major religion, the legislature will accomodate them. If your prejudices belong to a minor religion, aka a cult, the free exercise clause means a lot less.

ohwilleke · 01-03-2002, 02:10 PM

I'm sure that the assistant provision wasn't designed to be an accomodiation. Most marriage statutes have the same provision, which is designed to ease the work load of the clerk since an elected official need not be bogged down with unimportant non-discretionary duties.

Euromutt · 01-03-2002, 04:48 PM

Quote:

...town clerks argued that the law is unconstitutional because it forces them to violate their religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong by issuing civil union licenses to couples.

And the best the court can rule is that the above is "highly questionable"? What about "if you don't like it, get another job (asshole)"? Are the religious freedoms of fast-food workers violated by forcing them to serve food to homosexuals? And maybe even touch their money?
I thought this kind of crap had been resolved in the 1970s - or is there some weird double standard whereby racism isn't a valid religious expression, but homophobia is?

The Resistance · 01-03-2002, 06:22 PM

If I'm a vegetarian that works at a fast food store, can I refuse to make or sell burgers because I think it's unethical? Or instead should I find a new job?

DougI · 01-03-2002, 07:34 PM

This BS has happened before. A Catholic woman was hired at a pharmacy. After she got the job she refused to dispense any birth control because it was against her religion. She worked at a damn pharmacy, what did she expect? Even dumber would have been a $cientologist who wouldn't dispense anything as it is against the will of Xenu.

hezekiah jones · 01-04-2002, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Euromutt:
And the best the court can rule is that the above is "highly questionable"?

In the context of Supreme Court opinion writing, you can pretty much read, in this case, "highly questionable" as "unmitigated bullshit." The equivocation is likely due to the fact that the Free Exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution has historically exempted several sincere believers from activities, such as keeping their kids in public school, that have otherwise been enforced on everyone else.

But as Justice O'Connor wrote in one of the Free Exercise cases, to tailor all legislation in accordance with each individual's sincerely held religious beliefs would render society unable to function.

Quote:

What about "if you don't like it, get another job (asshole)"? Are the religious freedoms of fast-food workers violated by forcing them to serve food to homosexuals? And maybe even touch their money?

That's a good question. Free Exercise cases are often far more interesting, and raise more provocative issues, than the Establishment Clause cases. However practices in the private sector are subject to different standards than government policies.

Quote:

I thought this kind of crap had been resolved in the 1970s - or is there some weird double standard whereby racism isn't a valid religious expression, but homophobia is?

The issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation is currently in a state of flux in this country, although the so-called gay rights movement appears to be gaining the upper hand. Racism and "religionism" have each been subjected to strict scrutiny by the courts, sexism to "intermediate" scrutiny, as far as I know.

There are some extremely well-organized opponents to the gay rights movement here. Although it would be flippant to equate "family values" with "homophobia," "family values" often appears to be something of a euphemism for opposition to legislation that would extend certain benefits to same-sex couples.

The irony is that the extension of benefits is merely a product of capitalist competition. It started in the private sector and the government needs to compete for potential employees by offering similar benefits. It's ironic because the same people that are lobbying against same-sex benefits are also worshipping at the shrine of laissez-faire.

And of course you realize that America has been undergoing a severe moral decline over the last fifty years, much of which is the fault of homosexuals and anti-god civil rights groups.

Oresta · 01-04-2002, 07:16 AM

Don't forget us uppity women

.

crazyfingers · 01-04-2002, 04:22 PM

Hey guys come on. That ruling is good news for the good guys! What's all the pissing and moaning about?

Oresta · 01-05-2002, 04:51 AM

I heartily agree. Vt. seems to be in synch with the real world in both its lege and high court.

01-03-2002, 12:13 PM	#1
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Vermont Court Rejects Challenges to Civil Unions <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56956-2002Jan3.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56956-2002Jan3.html</a> Note how clerks can appoint assistants to hand out civil union documents if the clerks themselves don't want to for religious reasons. They believe in Jesus, so they can discriminate. Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2002, 02:10 PM	#3
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	I'm sure that the assistant provision wasn't designed to be an accomodiation. Most marriage statutes have the same provision, which is designed to ease the work load of the clerk since an elected official need not be bogged down with unimportant non-discretionary duties.

01-03-2002, 06:22 PM	#5
The Resistance Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 571	If I'm a vegetarian that works at a fast food store, can I refuse to make or sell burgers because I think it's unethical? Or instead should I find a new job?

01-03-2002, 07:34 PM	#6
DougI Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Wichita, KS, USA Posts: 932	This BS has happened before. A Catholic woman was hired at a pharmacy. After she got the job she refused to dispense any birth control because it was against her religion. She worked at a damn pharmacy, what did she expect? Even dumber would have been a $cientologist who wouldn't dispense anything as it is against the will of Xenu.

01-04-2002, 07:16 AM	#8
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	Don't forget us uppity women .

01-04-2002, 04:22 PM	#9
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	Hey guys come on. That ruling is good news for the good guys! What's all the pissing and moaning about?

01-05-2002, 04:51 AM	#10
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	I heartily agree. Vt. seems to be in synch with the real world in both its lege and high court.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.