Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not know your Constitution that well, does the First Ammendment give all employees the right to use their religious beliefs while at work?
Not necessarily. The First prohibits government from discriminating against religious and non-religious beliefs, therefore government employees cannot prefer one religion's strictures over others, they must serve anyone who walks in the door.
Both public and private employers, however, must make "reasonable accommodation" for their employee's religious beliefs. In the Kim Davis case, that meant that she personally is not required to issue the licenses, but that she must allow her employees to do so. Whether that reasoning will apply in this case, I don't know.
Not necessarily. The First prohibits government from discriminating against religious and non-religious beliefs, therefore government employees cannot prefer one religion's strictures over others, they must serve anyone who walks in the door.
Both public and private employers, however, must make "reasonable accommodation" for their employee's religious beliefs. In the Kim Davis case, that meant that she personally is not required to issue the licenses, but that she must allow her employees to do so. Whether that reasoning will apply in this case, I don't know.
Yes I see the two cases as different, in Davis case she prohibited others from issuing certificates as well. In this case the clerk claimed that others could still issue SSM certificates however I have no knowledge of how that office works and how it would affect the applicant's service. So could 5here still be reasonable accommodation? That is the story and if it was unreasonable I think that her being let go would be the right thing to do. Nor do we know if there was more than just refusing to serve involved.
I still stand firmly that issuing a legal marriage certificate is not personally endorsing SSM but simply confirming that the requirements of law were satisfied. There should be no religious connotation involved in issuing or not issuing the certificate. Either the couple are eligible or ineligible for the legal document. Seems tough these refusals are more a protest that the law did not go the way they wanted it rather than an adverse affect on them and their religion.
Yes I see the two cases as different, in Davis case she prohibited others from issuing certificates as well. In this case the clerk claimed that others could still issue SSM certificates however I have no knowledge of how that office works and how it would affect the applicant's service. So could 5here still be reasonable accommodation? That is the story and if it was unreasonable I think that her being let go would be the right thing to do. Nor do we know if there was more than just refusing to serve involved.
Without knowing all the details, it seems to me that in this particular case, reasonable accommodation would depend on the number of employees. If there are only two or three employees, then it might not be possible to accommodate this particular employee. If there are a dozen or so, then it seems to me that reasonable accommodation is possible.
It's obviously a balancing act that will depend on the specifics of the situation - number of other employees, job descriptions, scheduling, will all come into play. And yes, this atheist thinks that if reasonable accommodation could have been made but the employee was fired anyway, then the employer is clearly in the wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
I still stand firmly that issuing a legal marriage certificate is not personally endorsing SSM but simply confirming that the requirements of law were satisfied. There should be no religious connotation involved in issuing or not issuing the certificate. Either the couple are eligible or ineligible for the legal document. Seems tough these refusals are more a protest that the law did not go the way they wanted it rather than an adverse affect on them and their religion.
I agree with you here. The idea that issuing a marriage license implies personal endorsement on the part of the clerk is just plain silly, IMO. If that same clerk had been fired for refusing to issue a marriage license because one member of the applying couple had been divorced, would anyone take it up as a cause celebre?
Without knowing all the details, it seems to me that in this particular case, reasonable accommodation would depend on the number of employees. If there are only two or three employees, then it might not be possible to accommodate this particular employee. If there are a dozen or so, then it seems to me that reasonable accommodation is possible.
It's obviously a balancing act that will depend on the specifics of the situation - number of other employees, job descriptions, scheduling, will all come into play. And yes, this atheist thinks that if reasonable accommodation could have been made but the employee was fired anyway, then the employer is clearly in the wrong.
I agree with you here. The idea that issuing a marriage license implies personal endorsement on the part of the clerk is just plain silly, IMO. If that same clerk had been fired for refusing to issue a marriage license because one member of the applying couple had been divorced, would anyone take it up as a cause celebre?
For sure, not. The Kim Davis test case showed that religious conviction does not serve as an excuse not to do your job. I'm not sure how they got there but the court ordered her to do the job and she refused. That was contempt of court which was a crime, and so she went to jail twice.
In the end she accepted a compromise whereby she would not be required to issue the licenses herself but could not prevent others from issung them.
This was mercy rather than Justice, but I go along with that.
This is the template for what is happening here.We do not need a test case because we have one, and we do not have a crime unless the person involved makes a point off it.
Nothing but a violation of the 1st amendment here. The government is now punishing people for exercising their religious freedom. America is a dying country.
Obviously there would be exceptions if your religious beliefs involved criminal behavior. Refusing to endorse SSM is not a criminal act.
NO ONE CAN ENDORSE what is LEGAL...it is law and one has NO RIGHT to prevent the law from being carried out. It would be like evangelicals deciding that SLAVERY was really a good thing and their god's will is that slavery be practiced by the church...it would be illegal for the church to start snatching people off the street as slaves--even though they believe their go an the bible gives them the right to do so--the law says NO SLAVES ANYMORE..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
There is a well established exception from free speech protections for government employees when it comes to matters of employment requirements. This was litigated decades ago.
We recognize a similar dichotomy between free speech and employer rights with respect to intelligence and military secrets. I don't want to get too political, but this is the basis of the argument about Edward Snowden's and Hillary Clinton's actions.
As a government employer who supervises people, I have the rights and responsibilities to direct my staff. I can stop them from being rude to clients.
It is terribly easy to cite dozens if additional examples. As a practical matter, this isn't even a close call. If you choose to pursue a certain career path, you voluntarily give up some of your rights. There simply isn't a conflict here.
But refusing to do the work necessary to perform the job you signed up for is a firable offense. Christians and other religious folk aren't exempted from this, much as it seems to shock them that they aren't entitled to special treatment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
