NC Senate considers bill for magistrates to opt-out of SSM marriages

[Miles]

Article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it just passed the full chamber today.

I guess they forgot we have this little thing called the Constitution.

[TDAS04]

Any marriages based on "sincerely held religious objections"?  lol

[ElectionsGuy]

Why would they even do this?

[afleitch]

Why would they even do this?

Most Republican state legislatures are trying to pass legislation that undercuts LGBT rights, in light of failing at their opposition to SSM. Most of the bills are 'freedom to discriminate' bills.

The good thing is, they too will eventually be challenged at a higher level, so these sorts of interventions might in the end be helpful.

[Likely Voter]

Since Roe conservatives have used state legislatures effectively to limit access to abortions, especially in the last few years. It seems they are trying the same tactic with same sex marriage.. But this time they are going to run into constitutional   problems in the courts.

[7,052,770]

Funny how you never hear about magistrates refusing to marry people who are divorced...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Funny how you never hear about magistrates refusing to marry people who are divorced...

Divorce is perfectly fine because Saint Reagan was divorced.

[Beet]

Can straight people refuse to be married by magistrates who refuse to marry same sex couples?

[Miles]

^ Yep. This would even allow them to refuse mixed race couples.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Maybe they should pass a law allowing officers to opt-out of being in a gay pride parade.

Can straight people refuse to be married by magistrates who refuse to marry same sex couples?

If this passes, then the magistrate who objects to the same-sex marriage will not be officiating marriages at all.

[MaxQue]

Maybe they should pass a law allowing officers to opt-out of being in a gay pride parade.

Can straight people refuse to be married by magistrates who refuse to marry same sex couples?

If this passes, then the magistrate who objects to the same-sex marriage will not be officiating marriages at all.

I don't see why. It's like a variation of the gay wedding cake. Some gay couple wants a wedding cake, the business say yes (you and Ernest have argued they could say no, but in that case, it's irrelevent). The employee refuses to do so? Does he have the right to decline to do what his boss told him to do?

Can an employee decline to serve a gay couple for religious reasons, despite being asked to do so by his boss?

As for the second part, I have no issue with that.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Religious freedom. Forcing someone to obey a law that's against their religion is a violation of civil liberties.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Religious freedom. Forcing someone to obey a law that's against their religion is a violation of civil liberties.

lol

[afleitch]

Religious freedom. Forcing someone to obey a law that's against their religion is a violation of civil liberties.

What happens if they change religions, or change interpretation of their existing religion and now support things they once opposed and oppose things they once supported. Can they now ignore different bits of the law depending on what they decide to believe in?

Why should religious freedom be the only 'freedom' that should be allowed to opt out of the law. What about non-religious positions? What about ethical stances? Political ones, ideological ones. If you are a self described fascist and the traditions and stances of fascism resonate with you in your daily life and give you order, purpose and morals, should you be allowed to opt out of the laws that go against your fascist beliefs?

What about the other parts of the First Amendment? If it's your Freedom of Speech to say you think the races shouldn't mix, should you be allowed to ignore a law that's against their personal beliefs? Should the press be allowed to ignore the law because their rights are protected?

[Intell]

Religious freedom. Forcing someone to obey a law that's against their religion is a violation of civil liberties.

What about the christians that supported slavery? Is taking away, slaves from them a violation of their civil liberties, if it is the religious view that they have a right to own slaves?

Stop this, BS argument of Religious Freedom.

[Oakvale]

Religious freedom. Forcing someone to obey a law that's against their religion is a violation of civil liberties.

What about the christians that supported slavery? Is taking away, slaves from them a violation of their civil liberties, if it is the religious view that they have a right to own slaves?

Stop this, BS argument of Religious Freedom.

That's not actually an accurate comparison.

[anvi]

Actually, if the NC magistrates in question are barred from performing any marriages if they object to presiding over some that are permitted by law, then I'd have no objection to that, as it circumvents discrimination.  As for that cop in the story shua posted, I'd have been fine with him being reassigned to parade protection instead of performing in it.  It's the cases of outright discrimination in duties one is otherwise bound by profession or law to perform on the grounds of "religious freedom" that bother me.

[SteveRogers]

I think everyone is ignoring something very important here which is that this is NOT like the wedding cake scenario in the least because a magistrate is not an employee of a private business but rather a state official. When a public employee discriminates in this fashion, it is state action of the very type that the 14th amendment forbids. Unlike a private business, the state does NOT have the right to refuse service to whoever they choose.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think everyone is ignoring something very important here which is that this is NOT like the wedding cake scenario in the least because a magistrate is not an employee of a private business but rather a state official. When a public employee discriminates in this fashion, it is state action of the very type that the 14th amendment forbids. Unlike a private business, the state does NOT have the right to refuse service to whoever they choose.

The employee is a representative of the state, but is not the state in total, so you do not have a right for a particular employee of the state to do something if the state can do that same something just as well with another employee. Whether or not that is the case would be the question as to whether this bill is workable.

[MaxQue]

I think everyone is ignoring something very important here which is that this is NOT like the wedding cake scenario in the least because a magistrate is not an employee of a private business but rather a state official. When a public employee discriminates in this fashion, it is state action of the very type that the 14th amendment forbids. Unlike a private business, the state does NOT have the right to refuse service to whoever they choose.

The employee is a representative of the state, but is not the state in total, so you do not have a right for a particular employee of the state to do something if the state can do that same something just as well with another employee. Whether or not that is the case would be the question as to whether this bill is workable.

That's a clear violation of the management rights of the employer. The employer decides what the employee is doing, not the reverse! You can ask your boss to not do it, but nothing is forcing him to agree with you.

[bedstuy]

It seems to me that people with very strict, specific fundamentalist religious beliefs about marriage shouldn't work for a government body that performs the secular judicial/administrative function of marriage for the government. 

It would be the same for a devout Jew who wanted to be a meat plant inspector, but wouldn't set foot inside plant that processed pork.  Perhaps your employer could accommodate that some of the time, but it's silly to expect that as a right.

[SteveRogers]

I think everyone is ignoring something very important here which is that this is NOT like the wedding cake scenario in the least because a magistrate is not an employee of a private business but rather a state official. When a public employee discriminates in this fashion, it is state action of the very type that the 14th amendment forbids. Unlike a private business, the state does NOT have the right to refuse service to whoever they choose.

The employee is a representative of the state, but is not the state in total, so you do not have a right for a particular employee of the state to do something if the state can do that same something just as well with another employee. Whether or not that is the case would be the question as to whether this bill is workable.

If all the straight couples who go to the county courthouse have to wait one hour to get a marriage license while all the gay couples have to wait two hours while the court finds a judge willing to do it, then discrimination has occurred, state action is present, the gay couple can bring a section 1983 claim against the judge, and they should win their lawsuit.

[bedstuy]

I think everyone is ignoring something very important here which is that this is NOT like the wedding cake scenario in the least because a magistrate is not an employee of a private business but rather a state official. When a public employee discriminates in this fashion, it is state action of the very type that the 14th amendment forbids. Unlike a private business, the state does NOT have the right to refuse service to whoever they choose.

The employee is a representative of the state, but is not the state in total, so you do not have a right for a particular employee of the state to do something if the state can do that same something just as well with another employee. Whether or not that is the case would be the question as to whether this bill is workable.

If all the straight couples who go to the county courthouse have to wait one hour to get a marriage license while all the gay couples have to wait two hours while the court finds a judge willing to do it, then discrimination has occurred, state action is present, the gay couple can bring a section 1983 claim against the judge, and they should win their lawsuit.

I thought they were exempt from that?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think everyone is ignoring something very important here which is that this is NOT like the wedding cake scenario in the least because a magistrate is not an employee of a private business but rather a state official. When a public employee discriminates in this fashion, it is state action of the very type that the 14th amendment forbids. Unlike a private business, the state does NOT have the right to refuse service to whoever they choose.

The employee is a representative of the state, but is not the state in total, so you do not have a right for a particular employee of the state to do something if the state can do that same something just as well with another employee. Whether or not that is the case would be the question as to whether this bill is workable.

That's a clear violation of the management rights of the employer. The employer decides what the employee is doing, not the reverse! You can ask your boss to not do it, but nothing is forcing him to agree with you.

With all this concern about management rights I'm guessing you hate labor unions pretty strongly?
Anyway, in this case, they work for the state, whose policy is set by the legislature. So if the legislature is ok with it, then whatever the employer's rights are ( I guess it'd be state's rights in this case) are satisfied. Bada bing bada boom.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think everyone is ignoring something very important here which is that this is NOT like the wedding cake scenario in the least because a magistrate is not an employee of a private business but rather a state official. When a public employee discriminates in this fashion, it is state action of the very type that the 14th amendment forbids. Unlike a private business, the state does NOT have the right to refuse service to whoever they choose.

The employee is a representative of the state, but is not the state in total, so you do not have a right for a particular employee of the state to do something if the state can do that same something just as well with another employee. Whether or not that is the case would be the question as to whether this bill is workable.

If all the straight couples who go to the county courthouse have to wait one hour to get a marriage license while all the gay couples have to wait two hours while the court finds a judge willing to do it, then discrimination has occurred, state action is present, the gay couple can bring a section 1983 claim against the judge, and they should win their lawsuit.

That's very clearly not going to happen with this bill since the magistrates who don't do same sex marriages won't be doing any marriages anyway, as was stated in the article and several times in this thread already. So we can all wait a couple hours and suffer because goodness knows marriage is something that should be rushed into.