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

[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.

I thought they were exempt from that?

Ok, good point, I wasn't thinking that deeply about that example.* Swap out "judge" for "county clerk" and my example works fine.

*Yes, judges are very hard to sue because of immunity and whatnot. Although I think issuing a marriage license as a routine matter may not count as a judicial action, but that's not an issue for this thread.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

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?

Our resident vocal atheist strikes.

First of all, civil liberties based on religion are perfectly acceptable. If you want to go back to discriminate because of religion, then do that.

Second, the fascism comparison is terrible. No fascist would have a chance at being a judge, regardless of what people say. Unlike political ideology, religious values and virtues (or according to you, lack therof) are brought up from youth. They may change ideas regarding their beliefs, but still hold morals. Every atheist knows that cheating, coventing, disrespect, and extramarital affiars are bad without having to look at the Ten Commandments.

[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?

Our resident vocal atheist strikes.

First of all, civil liberties based on religion are perfectly acceptable. If you want to go back to discriminate because of religion, then do that.

Second, the fascism comparison is terrible. No fascist would have a chance at being a judge, regardless of what people say. Unlike political ideology, religious values and virtues (or according to you, lack therof) are brought up from youth. They may change ideas regarding their beliefs, but still hold morals. Every atheist knows that cheating, coventing, disrespect, and extramarital affiars are bad without having to look at the Ten Commandments.

I loved how you answered a question I didn't ask and ignored the one I did