My wording was not as clear as it ought to have been; but I had a state official who happens to be catholic in mind, not a catholic church employee(so, analogous to the county clerk in the article, except with objections to remarriage rather than gays); I don’t really have much interest in what individual denominations feel like officiating or not(though it can be fun to watch them fight); but I have a strong interest in state agents and how they do their jobs.
There are a wide variety of options that would likely suit; but this seemed like a convenient thought experiment because it’d be basically the same claim as the officials above are making; but about a marriage related issue that has pretty much zero public support outside of the very most conservative circles. Observing the outcome of such a refusal would provide a good indicator of actual support for the poor, oppressed, religious liberties of the state agents, vs. mere support for state agents who refuse to do things that much of the public also don’t want done.
My suspicion, of course, is that most of the support is for the latter, and if there isn’t much public support for your religious scruples the public’s response will turn to “well, either do your job or leave your job, next.” pretty quickly. For a test, though, we need some doctrinally respectable(sorry pastafarians, I love you too; but it’s hard to convince people that you are serious) scruples that also lack much public support or interest. Divorce is a handy one.
Meh. It is pretty hard for me to work up a fury over this. Yes, the official in question is bigoted. As has been well explored by the posts above this line of “personal belief” exception makes no sense in any other context, and the line of reasoning that this behavior in a public official should be protected is deeply misguided. But the office will still be issuing marriage licenses to anyone who qualifies. Some people are going to have an unnecessarily unpleasant day trying to get their marriage license. They shouldn’t have to deal with that, but compared to the other injustices in the world (or in Texas), this is a minor one. We won, they lost, and in a short period of time, people will forget all about losers like this. And in the mean time, people who want to get married still can.
It’s interesting how many of those far-right folks don’t have much a problem with credit cards and all the other conveniences of modern banking. 'cuz usury.
You know, I typically only argue with gun owners about firearms control over the internet.
I choose to only engage them over the internet because by owning their guns they’ve demonstrated that shooting people, and possibly killing people, is a valid solution to problems in their mind. And it’s pretty hard to shoot me when I’m not physically available to target.
I think that pretty much explains who I think would win in the debate between people who want to talk, and people who want to be allowed the tools to kill lots of people fast.
The history of usury theory is good fun. Short story, most christian prohibitions of it were dead letters(though the circumlocutions favored during the process of dismantling them actually vary sharply between catholic and protestant sources) by the time long-distance trade really started to pick back up toward the end of the medieval period. Now, it’s nothing more than an ill-defined term of abuse for particularly high interest rates.
What makes a great sequel, though, is that islam did not defang its usury prohibitions to nearly the same degree; but now you’ve got nominally islamic countries that want shiny financial services sectors; and banks that want to offer ‘islamic’ financial products. The scholastic commentators got pretty creative in justifying various ‘looks like a loan at interest; but really isnt because reasons’ arrangements back in the day. Now, though, you’ve got the combination of modern finance’s mad-alchemist enthusiasm for brutally inscrutable synthetic derivatives and similar baroque schemes and clever religious legalisms cobbled together so that a given instrument can be marketed as compliant.
Not what I’d call an honest business; but quite interesting to watch.
Also amazing: Very few christans kill their children for being disrespectful little shits.
I mean, the old testament says multiple times that parents are supposed to kill their children if they’re disrespectful. Yet there’s a howling dearth of religiously motivated filicides. Although a lot of the filicides that do happen are via the excuse of revelation… “The archangel Michale came to me as a voice in my head telling me to drown the babies in the tub!”
Sounds to me exactly like the Jews when it comes to sabbath restrictions. They first insist that their god is all knowing and all powerful and all wise. Then they put up an eruv, or use light timers, or use velcro shoes, because apparently they believe they can outsmart someone they believe literally knows everything including the legalistic machinations of their deceitful minds.
That’s why I believe they’re insincere and faithless and get even more pissed off when they do things like: refuse to board a plane that has women on it.
They think they are better lawyers and logicians than the very entity they believe created and maintains the law and logic.
Being able to construct a valid legal argument under Jewish law demonstrates that you take God seriously enough to study the Tanakh and the Talmud/ God is impressed by your devotion to his cause.
That doesn’t sound like the merciless, wrathful, smitey-smashy god of the old testament. That sounds more like a reasonable and kind god thing, which would be totally out of character for the god who demands child sacrifice.
But then again, I’m not a god, so I wouldn’t know the bipolar leaps of logic yahawe would consider appropriate.
People who do not wish to do their jobs should always - always, always, always, without caveat, prejudice or compulsion - be free to resign.
People who wish to keep their jobs must do them.
We can’t rest on our laurels. Officials who shirk their duty claiming religious exemption only serve as precedent and example to others who would do the same, and they encourage resistance to the rule of law and continued discrimination by the general public.
Just because the court decided marriage is a right for gay couples doesn’t mean it’s a foregone conclusion that everything will be set right in short order; desegregation didn’t end racial discrimination, and Roe v Wade legalized abortion but we are still fighting to retain that right forty years later. The war isn’t over because of one battle, even if it was a major victory. Or do I need to remind you of this guy…
unfortunately the texas legislature passed a law that makes it impossible for a locality to ban fracking. after all, we wouldn’t want places to be able to look out for their environment and their safety on their own to the detriment of our energy company overlords, would we? @anon27007144 is probably referencing that unfortunate fact.
During desegregation, some store owners actually did argue that serving black people was against their religion as Christians (and I’m sure they meant it). That argument didn’t fly with the courts, however.
