Caring Too Much

July 11, 2008 6:19 AM

Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar, has won her discrimination case after refusing to conduct same sex civil partnerships. " Islington Council cared too much about the "rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual" community, the panel ruled. "
posted by chuckdarwin (334 comments total)

She asked to be excused from them because other registrars could conduct the services.

This does seem pretty reasonable to me, actually. Any largish office is going to have many duties and lots of available clerks. Excusing someone who is genuinely uncomfortable doesn't seem like it would be undue hardship for anyone. Of course, there's the problem of an entire office of homophobic nutjobs...

I do wonder what other practices her "orthodox Christian beliefs'' should be excluding her from, though. Like, does she process any divorces?
posted by DU at 6:29 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

I know, right? I mean if restaurant staff are genuinely uncomfortable serving black people, they can just go and get served where they're welcomed. Right?
posted by liquorice at 6:35 AM on July 11 [24 favorites]

What I mean is, don't have her performing marriages at all. Have her file tax leins. Or she can run the map room. Or count beans.

To use your example, which is better:

1) Force your racist waiter to interact with black customers, to the discomfort of both, most likely

2) Have your racist waiter clean bathrooms, where he doesn't come in contact with anyone

?
posted by DU at 6:40 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

3) Not employ the racist waiter.
posted by lullaby at 6:45 AM on July 11 [19 favorites]

It's hard to tell from the sloppy writing in the news articles, but it would appear the ruling is over the way Islington Council handled the case (over-aggressively), rather than whether she has the right to not perform the ceremonies.
posted by cillit bang at 6:45 AM on July 11

3) Not employ the racist waiter.

First of all, it's too late, you already do. Second of all, especially in the case of the Christian clerk, you aren't allowed to not hire based on that criterion. (Although you could make "will serve black customers" or "will perform gay marriages" part of the explicit hiring criteria, I assume...)

Also: they can just go and get served where they're welcomed.

I'm not at all saying that the customers (or newlyweds) should go somewhere else. I'm saying the restaurant (or office) should redistribute it's staff for the best experience for everyone, while staying within the law for everyone.

We do still have the problem of the small office with one or two clerks, all of which are nutjobs. They will just have to suck it up and perform their duties.
posted by DU at 6:51 AM on July 11

Although you could make "will serve black customers" or "will perform gay marriages" part of the explicit hiring criteria, I assume.

The criteria isn't "serve black customers" (or "perform gay marriages") it's do your job.
posted by lullaby at 6:54 AM on July 11 [7 favorites]

I'm not at all saying that the customers (or newlyweds) should go somewhere else. I'm saying the restaurant (or office) should redistribute it's staff for the best experience for everyone, while staying within the law for everyone.

Nope, sorry that doesn't work for me DU. The clerk, as the representative of the Islington council is the face of government. They don't get to insert personal moral beliefs into their job. I don't pay council tax to be given the cold shoulder by some clerk because she doesn't like the color of my tie.

I do not like seeing the state run over anyone's individual rights, but there are some places where individual rights should be surrendered. This is one of them.
posted by three blind mice at 6:56 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

And if one school doesn't want to have some kind of people in it, we can just have another school cover it. Separate but equal, everyone wins!
posted by burnmp3s at 6:57 AM on July 11

When I saw "a Christian registrar" my first thought was "there's a .god?"
posted by rokusan at 6:59 AM on July 11 [15 favorites]

(Although you could make "will serve black customers" or "will perform gay marriages" part of the explicit hiring criteria)

I am pretty sure that's implicit in "will perform the duties of the fucking job.".
posted by rokusan at 7:00 AM on July 11

I know, right? I mean if restaurant staff are genuinely uncomfortable serving black people, they can just go and get served where they're welcomed. Right?
posted by liquorice at 9:35 AM on July 11

Reverse it. The waiter is black and the customers are racists. The waiter is made uncomfortable or is offended by the customers. Can the restaurant require the waiter to serve that table? If not, are the racist patrons being denied service by having a smaller pool of waiter who can serve them?

That's the analogy. In both cases, the worker's fundamental right (to religion, or freedom from racial discrimination) is offended by the patron (regardless of your opinion of the offense), and the legal issue is whether they can be forced into the offensive situation.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:01 AM on July 11 [4 favorites]

I don't know about Britain but at least in the US if you go up for a civil service job I think you do sign a slip of paper that says you'll "uphold the law".

In the "cared too much" link the opinion writer (opinionist?) makes reference to pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives based on their religious beliefs. BUT I'm not sure it applies the same way. Pharmacists are not civil servants. So, unfortunately, they don't have to uphold the law and keep their religion out of their work. I do so wish it weren't fashionable to make a public statement about your faith.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 7:02 AM on July 11

The criteria isn't "serve black customers" (or "perform gay marriages") it's do your job.
posted by lullaby at 9:54 AM on July 11

I am pretty sure that's implicit in "will perform the duties of the fucking job.".
posted by rokusan at 10:00 AM on July 11

Again, imagine a slightly different scenario that isn't aligned ex ante with your political beliefs. Imagine you are gay and your work in the office that grants permits for demonstrations. A anti-gay group files for a petition. Assume that the political climate is such that a successful demonstration by this group will dissuade lawmakers from passing some gay rights bill.

Do you do your "fucking job" at that point?
posted by Pastabagel at 7:05 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

Thank god that finally, Islington's council tax payments will be spent on essential utilities, such as underwriting those who believe in ghosts and spirits, and helping express their intolerance towards others.

Maybe she's just stopping people less insane and gullible than herself from playing in her own madpool of theism. For that, I commend her.

Islington has the largest population of same-sex couples in any UK borough. From personal experience, it also seems to have the largest number of church->luxury flat conversions. She's fighting against the tide if she's trying to enforce her heterosexual fundamentalist christian worldview on a place that has already double-rejected it.
posted by davemee at 7:06 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

The problem with that, Pastabagel, is that the worker is offended by the very existence of the patron. Which is, on its face, pure bigotry and thus should not be considered grounds for discrimination targeted at the worker. Whereas if the worker says "I'm sorry, I won't serve you because you are a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater, you'll have to leave." is discriminatory against the OEOHFPPE.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 7:06 AM on July 11

They don't get to insert personal moral beliefs into their job. I don't pay council tax to be given the cold shoulder by some clerk because she doesn't like the color of my tie.

In my plan, you wouldn't get the cold shoulder. You get a clerk happy to perform his or her duty in performing your wedding.

Look, some would call me a militant atheist. I'm also very much in favor of gay rights, marriage in particular. This woman does not really have my sympathies. But I'm also not fond of employers being able to force anyone to do anything just based on their boss's say-so.

If, at the time she was hired, gay marriage was part of the job description, then sure, I guess the employer is morally able to force her to do it. Although it would still seem pretty reasonable to me to remove her to a different function.

Imagine a person working in the butcher section of a grocery store. They decide they want to be a vegetarian and ask the manager if they can stock shelves instead. Should the response be: "No, you 'will perform the duties of the fucking job.'"? Or is it reasonable to take personal moral objections into account, if it doesn't disrupt the normal operations of the entire facility?

(And to forestall the objection of "she didn't just recently decide to be a Christian": One could also imagine a long-time vegetarian working at a meatless deli that decided to start serving meat. The vegetarian requests being put on bun baking duty rather than handle meat. Is that unreasonable?)
posted by DU at 7:08 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

Do you do your "fucking job" at that point?

Yes, or resign because civil service doesn't suit you.
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:09 AM on July 11 [8 favorites]

A anti-gay group files for a petition. Assume that the political climate is such that a successful demonstration by this group will dissuade lawmakers from passing some gay rights bill. Do you do your "fucking job" at that point?

Yes. At least here in the US, people that nearly everyone disagrees with like Neo-Nazis still have the right to do public demonstrations. They don't need to find someone who works for the government that supports Nazis in order to get the things that are gauranteed to them by law.
posted by burnmp3s at 7:10 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

EDIT in response to Pastabagel:

and there we have the rub. If you don't like someone demonstrating against something you stand for. AND you give out the permits for demonstrations. THEN you have to do your fucking job and give out the permit.

Why? Because that's how government should work. People should have the freedom to demonstrate (and counter demonstrate). Your example works both ways.

Keep personal political and religious beliefs out of your office if you are a civil servant. Ideally personal beliefs would be kept out of gov't entirely and, in a representative democracy, representatives really would represent their constituents and not who pays them the most money.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 7:11 AM on July 11

Sam.Birdick, that isn't the case. The case is whether the restaurant is discriminatory by forcing the worker to serve people whose lifestyle offends them. In the Islington case, she didn't send the gay couples away, she asked her employer to find someone other than her to do them.

In my analogy, the black waiter asks the manager to find someone else to serve the racists The management refuses, forcing the black waiter into the uncomfortable situation.

In both cases, the gay couple and the racists patrons, the customer is denied nothing. They still get whatever service they came for. The question is whether the employer discriminates against the worker by forcing them to participate in situations that offend their religion and race, respectively.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:12 AM on July 11

DU, I understand where you're going; I do. But, she is a civil servant... paid for with the taxes of the people of Islington. She is duty bound to perform this service.

Personally, I think she should go work at Asda. Stocking shelves is probably more suited to her skill set.
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:12 AM on July 11

Possibly this case is complicated by the precedent that sovereignty and power of law is invested in HM the Queen and her Government by God Almighty, who in a landmark 500BC ruling stated that homosexuals should not be treated with dignity and respect but should instead have their skulls smashed open with pointed rocks.

Or not! Not is an option too.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:14 AM on July 11

There are not many issues that can divide opinion even at the moral sledgehammer-to-the-face that is the Daily Mail Add Your Comment section.
posted by creeky at 7:15 AM on July 11

And before my position is lumped in with Pastabagel's, I'd like to point out a subtle, but vital, difference:

If you are the only clerk in the office, you have to do your job, period. You have to give out the permits, you have to perform the marriages, no matter how you personally feel. You are the only conduit by which the law "flows to" the public and you can't stand in the way.

BUT, if you are one of twenty clerks, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to distribute the workers in such a way that the law flows smoothly with a minimum of personal objections. Put the nutjobs in the back office where they won't bother anyone.
posted by DU at 7:15 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

The clerk, as the representative of the Islington council is the face of government. They don't get to insert personal moral beliefs into their job.

So I take it you were clamoring for the firing of the mayor of San Francisco in 2004, when he issued gay marriage licenses that were against the law at the time.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:15 AM on July 11 [4 favorites]

She is duty bound to perform this service.

But only because her boss has her on marriage duty. Is that they only thing she can do there? They don't have any other paperwork she can do? And maybe a fresh-faced up-and-coming clerk in the back room who would love to do a bunch of marriages? They could switch duties.
posted by DU at 7:18 AM on July 11

But, she is a civil servant... paid for with the taxes of the people of Islington. She is duty bound to perform this service.

What is your objection to having someone else in the office do it?
posted by oaf at 7:19 AM on July 11

I do agree that if there are others in the office who can do the duties without objection then it is the job of the manager to make sure that the office flows smoothly.

But, I'm sure one of these assholes would say that they were discriminated against by the manager when they were assigned other duties instead of giving out marriage licenses.

Look, this lady is just trying to prove a point and wave her "I'm a Good Christian" flag for all to see. It's political grandstanding and should be treated as such.

We're not gonna make any headway with people like this.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 7:23 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

homophobic

offended, disgusted, morally opposed or complete lack of interest in any social problems associated with anothers choice of behavior - none of these is a phobia.
posted by quonsar at 7:23 AM on July 11 [3 favorites]

Not that I don't see the quandary here, and I realize it's not black and white, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that performing marriage ceremonies would have been one of the duties listed in her contract of employment, if there was such a thing. I didn't seen anything in the articles about it.
posted by kingbenny at 7:24 AM on July 11

Her manager was probably making a point: we all have to do these marriages and so do you. Get on with it and stop moaning.

At which point she got the tribunal thing rolling and cashed in. I just can't get on her team, here. She should have done as she was told or quit.
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:27 AM on July 11

I'm sure one of these assholes would say that they were discriminated against by the manager when they were assigned other duties

yeah, like the assholes a few weeks ago that were saying they were discriminated against when they could have picked from thousands of other wedding photographers.
posted by quonsar at 7:29 AM on July 11 [4 favorites]

If it's legal and part of the job description, then you should be doing your job. If you think a black person serving racists is uncommon, I've got news for you. Harassment is one thing, and I think that employee would be hard pressed to show that someone legally getting married is harassing them.

If you can't do your job, it should go down as an inability to perform. There's also the confounding factor of public service employees versus privately owned business (like restaurants).
posted by cashman at 7:36 AM on July 11

Somebody check the thermostat in Hades, because I totally agree with DU on this one.
posted by tadellin at 7:37 AM on July 11

Is this not similar to the cases in the US, in which pharmacists who have moral (religious) objections to filling contraceptive and emergency contraceptive prescriptions have the right to refuse to fill them? It was decided that they could choose to not do their job, but instead have another pharmacist do it.
posted by Houstonian at 7:39 AM on July 11

> What is your objection to having someone else in the office do it?

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I think part of the objection is that by shuffling the office around because of her nutty beliefs, by giving her any quarter at all, and by frankly doing anything but the absolute minimum required by anti-discrimination law, it might possibly be construed as validating her beliefs.

And to be honest I think there's some merit in that. If a society decides that it wants to actively work to stamp out certain beliefs (racism, homophobia, etc.), it's probably not unfair to take a dim view of claims brought by people asserting their right to have those beliefs, particularly in government.

I doubt the public in either the U.S. or Britain would tolerate reshuffling staff in a government agency because some of them refused to deal with black people -- we'd justifiably want the racists sacked. I think there's a growing public sentiment that homophobia is in the same category as racism (it's not there yet, but I think it's growing), and that's why there's such hostility towards the idea of tolerating those beliefs.

Fundamentally, the question is whether you should "tolerate intolerance," as well as what kind of conduct you want to allow religious objections to encompass.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:40 AM on July 11 [4 favorites]

I think the difference is that Pharmacies are privately owned businesses.
posted by cashman at 7:41 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

Pastabagel, I am really uncomfortable with your analogy where legally-recognized, loving gay couples are equated with racists.

Racists are insufficiently socialized assholes, and arguably, that is a 'lifestyle choice.'

Gays, particularly those who are lucky enough to have found loving partners*, are simply living their life and pursuing happiness.

It sort of makes the analogy fall apart.

Also, laws change. And laws are, well, laws. And if they change in a way that affects your job description, that is just tough shit for you. You either perform to the new standard in its entirety, or find a new job. STFU and GBTW.

* and have done so in country that recognizes them as fully human and thus deserving of all the same rights as other humans
posted by CaptApollo at 7:41 AM on July 11

it's probably not unfair to take a dim view of claims brought by people asserting their right to have those beliefs, particularly in government

What if she signed on before the same-sex partnerships were legal?
posted by oaf at 7:43 AM on July 11

offended, disgusted, morally opposed or complete lack of interest in any social problems associated with anothers choice of behavior - none of these is a phobia.

I know, and I remember when the word "gay" just meant "happy"! Honestly, it's political correctness gone mad.

DU, the other problem with any argument based around allowing people to opt out of parts of the government job they've agreed to do on the grounds of "conscience" is obviously precedent. What about the bigoted solo registrar in the small rural office — why shouldn't they be allowed to opt out if the bigoted city registrar is allowed to? That's discrimination on the basis of the number of people who happen to work in your office. But the real issue here is the preference given to people's arbitrary subjective hostile urges towards specific groups of people simply because the bigots are members of a particular organized religion.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 7:43 AM on July 11

oaf,

then she can quit.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 7:45 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

chuckdarwin: Personally, I think she should go work at Asda. Stocking shelves is probably more suited to her skill set.

As long as she doesn't have to stack pepperoni pizza, or put the beef near the cheese, or use a mirror on a wednesday or whatever these whackjobs randomly choose to follow. And it is a choice. You can choose to be damned, or choose to be salivated, or choose not to be shoved around by insane 2000 year old doctrine, triple mistranslated.
posted by davemee at 7:49 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

So I take it you were clamoring for the firing of the mayor of San Francisco in 2004, when he issued gay marriage licenses that were against the law at the time.

I don't generally equate an act civil disobedience on the part of a major political figure with the bigoted actons of a city clerk... so I'll have to think about this.
posted by three blind mice at 7:50 AM on July 11

What if she signed on before the same-sex partnerships were legal?

Then she's free to go find another job. She has a right to hold whatever beliefs she chooses. Acting on those beliefs, in a civil service capacity, is not, however, her right.

I work at a library. quonsar calls up, wants help finding court cases about what he feels are unfair government incursions into individuals' religious practices. My office is staffed exclusively by bleeding-heart liberals. So I guess he's just out of luck? Sorry, sucker, I'm not going to help you with that, and no one else here will either.

Every day, I get requests for research help, many, many times from folks whose politics aren't just disagreeable to mine, but directly antagonistic. Should my library be forced to hire Republican and Democratic help-desk staff? No, that wouldn't be enough--we'd need representatives of every political slant, those who supported Clinton's presidential bid, but who are now drifting towards McCain, etc., ad nauseam.

No one's forcing me to serve anyone I don't want to. I can choose to serve all patrons equally, or I can quit.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:53 AM on July 11 [9 favorites]

So I take it you were clamoring for the firing of the mayor of San Francisco in 2004, when he issued gay marriage licenses that were against the law at the time.
I don't generally equate an act civil disobedience on the part of a major political figure with the bigoted actons of a city clerk... so I'll have to think about this.

Depending on which part of the world we're talking about, elected officials are usually in some sense lawmakers, and whether they can or should be fired for opposing a law, especially a federal law in a federation of states, is obviously a complicated question based on all sorts of different constitutional matters and court rulings.

By contrast: an employee of Islington Council whose only job is to implement British law as a civil servant does not get to make the law up as she goes along!

Also: discriminating against gay people is bad and allowing gay people to get married is good. So there's that, too.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 7:55 AM on July 11

then she can quit.

So the government has the right to put her out of a job by forcing her to do something she didn't sign up to do, and which offends her, even if others can be found to do the very thing that offends her?
posted by oaf at 7:55 AM on July 11

DU and chuckdarwin are both correct, she has demonstrated that she can not preform the job of registrar nor manage anyone performing it. If her employer has other jobs, like secretary jobs, then she should be transfered there. If not, then they have grounds for dismissal.

She won this case because her employer acted in a discriminatory way, threatening to fire her, when the thy could merely alter her position, and blackball her promotion options within the department.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:55 AM on July 11

So the government has the right to put her out of a job by forcing her to do something she didn't sign up to do, and which offends her, even if others can be found to do the very thing that offends her?

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes, unless her contract of employment gave her a reasonable right to expect otherwise. If it did it was a badly worded contract. Maybe that is part of the detail of this ruling, I don't know.

Otherwise, you're establishing completely subjective and arbitrary "offendedness" as an inarguable standard when it comes to seeking exemptions from contractual agreements.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 7:58 AM on July 11

oaf,

she chose to be a civil servant. she can un-choose to be one if she disagrees with the law.

here, I'll give you an illustration. Lets say that pot were made legal tomorrow. And to celebrate you' smoke a joint on main street in Smalltown US. And the local sheriff comes up to you and arrests you for smoking dope because he doesn't like people smoking dope. He would be in the wrong. And, if he doesn't like the law he can quit his job as sheriff and go do something else. Or he can do his fucking job and let you get bombed out of your mind and stare at daffodils for a few hours.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 8:00 AM on July 11

I don't know, on an idealistic level I think that if it's part of her job, she should just do it. I remember, though, one time when I was working at a phone-survey job, and one of the surveys was asking Americans their opinions on gay marriage (back in 2002 or 03). After having person after person tell me about how not only should gay people not be allowed to marry, but they should also be hauled out into the street and shot, I asked to be placed on another survey. I asked people about cars or milk or something instead.

Now, I know that I wasn't a public employee, but I know how distraught and upset I was at having to deal with these assholes who would rather I be dead than gay. I also know how easy it was to reassign me to another section. So, I'm torn. I think that maybe as long as she wasn't rude to the couple and was able to refer them to someone else who could help them, maybe it's alright. If she was the only one, though, or it would cause a lot of hassle to get someone else to do it, then she should have to do it. The main importance should be that they can get this filed, not necessarily who does it.
posted by arcticwoman at 8:02 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

As long as she doesn't have to stack pepperoni pizza, or put the beef near the cheese, or use a mirror on a wednesday or whatever these whackjobs randomly choose to follow. And it is a choice. You can choose to be damned, or choose to be salivated, or choose not to be shoved around by insane 2000 year old doctrine, triple mistranslated.

An excellent point! A hateful smear of plagiarised scribbles on some Bronze Age papyrus should have no bearing on the rights of British citizens to enter into legal partnerships.
posted by chuckdarwin at 8:03 AM on July 11

Although you could make "will serve black customers" or "will perform gay marriages" part of the explicit hiring criteria, I assume.

The criteria isn't "serve black customers" (or "perform gay marriages") it's do your job.
posted by lullaby at 9:54 AM on July 11 [1 favorite +] [!]

So, how do you feel about the state employee who resigned rather than see that the flag was at half-mast for Jesse Helms?
posted by konolia at 8:06 AM on July 11

I'm slightly amazed there are people arguing that government employees should be able to pick and choose which parts of their jobs they have to perform. OF COURSE a gay employee has to give an anti-gay rights organization paperwork they are legally entitled to ask for. OF COURSE someone who's a registrar has to perform their tasks for those legally qualified.

Should post office employees not have to handle mail they find offensive? My issue of "Skeptic" might mysteriously stop showing up in my mailbox....
posted by the bricabrac man at 8:07 AM on July 11

(And it was a forced resignation, btw.)
posted by konolia at 8:10 AM on July 11

Lets say that pot were made legal tomorrow. And to celebrate you' smoke a joint on main street in Smalltown US. And the local sheriff comes up to you and arrests you for smoking dope because he doesn't like people smoking dope. He would be in the wrong. And, if he doesn't like the law he can quit his job as sheriff and go do something else. Or he can do his fucking job and let you get bombed out of your mind and stare at daffodils for a few hours.

No, let's say that beer were made available for free in reasonable quantities at all municipal government offices starting tomorrow. There's a Southern Baptist clerk whose beliefs prohibit enabling anyone to drink. Should the clerk be required to give you your beer even though she didn't come into the job expecting to be doling out alcohol to the masses? What if there's someone else there who's perfectly willing to staff the beer window?
posted by oaf at 8:11 AM on July 11

Konolia,

That's their right and prerogative.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 8:11 AM on July 11

Employment legalities aside, Kadin2048 has hit it: there's a growing public sentiment that homophobia is in the same category as racism (it's not there yet, but I think it's growing)

If you personally do not group racism and homophobia in the exact same category, then the sentiments of DU, oaf and others make perfect sense.

If, like me, you find the two intrinsically the same phenomenon, then these positions make no sense at all.

And there it lies. I agree with Kadin2048: the tide of public sentiment is certainly growing.

Arcticwoman, I'm glad your boss reassigned you, but had she insisted, you would have been presented with the choice of being profoundly unhappy in your job, or quitting, right? If you simply sat in your chair and did not ask the survey questions, you would be fired for not performing your job, right?

Konolia re: the state employee who resigned: I applaud him and wish him well in his job search - I would gladly be a character reference.
posted by CaptApollo at 8:11 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

It's not a matter of being offended. It's a matter of being forced to violate one's religious convictions. Which is discriminatory toward said religion.

As long as all faiths are entitled to the same protection, what is the problem?
posted by konolia at 8:11 AM on July 11

Oh konolia, nobody is forcing her to be a registrar!
posted by CaptApollo at 8:14 AM on July 11 [3 favorites]

oaf,

That's fine. I'm not arguing that she should be fired because she won't do her job. But I am saying that she could quit.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 8:14 AM on July 11

I don't generally equate an act civil disobedience on the part of a major political figure with the bigoted actons of a city clerk...

Your act of civil disobedience is someone else's bigoted action.
posted by splice at 8:16 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

You are right, CaptApollo. If my boss had been unwilling and unable to reassign me, I would have quit and I would not have sued, understanding that even though I don't like the opinions elicited from this particular survey, it was important to elicit the opinions. But I guess it also depends on my boss's reason for (hypothetically) not reassigning me. If I had been kept on the anti-gay survey because there was nothing else for me to do or no one to take my place, I would have quit thinking "I guess I'm not right for this job." If, however, I felt that my boss kept me there because she was anti-gay herself and wanted to make me uncomfortable, I would have been upset and if I were generally a litigious person (and the job was worth it) I may have pursued the issue.
posted by arcticwoman at 8:22 AM on July 11

offended, disgusted, morally opposed or complete lack of interest in any social problems associated with anothers choice of behavior - none of these is a phobia.

Phobic doesn't mean "fear of".
posted by dirigibleman at 8:23 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

It's a matter of being forced to violate one's religious convictions

Her religious convictions forbid her from marrying another women. I don't think her registrar's job required her to become a lesbian.
posted by arcticwoman at 8:24 AM on July 11

It's a matter of being forced to violate one's religious convictions

She's not a slave. She's free to find another job.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:28 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

konolia:

Just like with Newsom, I see no problem with him being fired for his behavior. While I was't necessarily "clamoring" for it in either instance, an employer shouldn't be required to employ people who refuse to do what is clearly part of their job.

It's a matter of being forced to violate one's religious convictions. Which is discriminatory toward said religion.

She wasn't forced to take a job she was unwilling to do. I'm fairly sure that "freedom of religion" doesn't require that the person be financially compensated with tax dollars for doing so.
posted by uri at 8:29 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

Her religious convictions forbid her from marrying another women.

And from enabling it. You're splitting hairs.
posted by oaf at 8:30 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

Arctic there's no way in hell you would or should have won a lawsuit. I'm not gay but that's not something I'd want to hear either. You had a job that involved some serious ugliness and they were in their rights to have you do it. What if they had a policy of seniority chooses and you were low woman on the totem pole? They could (as they did) accommodate you but they wouldn't be required to and frankly in a job with unpleasantness to go around who can really object if they were hard-asses about it?
posted by Wood at 8:31 AM on July 11

You don't get to cherrypick. You don't get to fill out just the easy forms, you don't get to sweep only the clean offices, you don't have to clean only the executive toilets, you don't get to serve only the white diners, and you cannot refuse to give a marriage license only to straight people. You do you job -- all of it, even the distasteful parts -- properly, or you find another job voluntarily or forcibly.

Your religion prevents you from doing some of your job?
You are not in the right job.
Get the fuck out.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:32 AM on July 11 [3 favorites]

I think he was making a funny.

But his point still stands.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 8:33 AM on July 11

PUBLIC servant, PUB-LIC. That means everyone.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 8:34 AM on July 11

So, how do you feel about the state employee who resigned rather than see that the flag was at half-mast for Jesse Helms?

I believe he should have been fired.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:34 AM on July 11

All of these ideas of "accommodation" where your boss lets you do what you want and not what you don't because there are so many "other clerks" are naive. Some workplaces will accommodate you. Most expect you to accommodate them and they have their reasons for doing things that way. In fact to repeat myself many workplaces may choose to give employees choice in a particular order based on seniority or success and not based on whether the employee is a Christian or a vegetarian or black or a racist.
posted by Wood at 8:34 AM on July 11

It's not a matter of being offended. It's a matter of being forced to violate one's religious convictions. Which is discriminatory toward said religion.

Or, alternately - said religion proscribes that occupation. I am perfectly happy to let christians not be public servants, pharmacists or whatever else their religion feels they shouldn't be doing. I am happy to let muslims not be moneylenders, scientologists not be psychiatrists, or jews not be makers of pork pies.

But it's not the job that's doing the discriminating, because the job is not saying they can't do it. They are saying they won't do it. And the best place for someone who won't do a job ... is another job that they will do.

As long as all faiths are entitled to the same protection, what is the problem?

It discriminates against atheists who might wish to sue employers for buckets of swag, obviously.
posted by Sparx at 8:45 AM on July 11 [4 favorites]

it's not the job that's doing the discriminating

The job changed. The religious beliefs didn't.
posted by oaf at 8:46 AM on July 11

oaf... we'll say it once more

NO ONE IS FORCING HER TO BE A PUBLIC SERVANT.
posted by Sam.Burdick at 8:48 AM on July 11

Anyway it's a judgment call. There are two sides, first is the intent of the action to discriminate? OK, let's say no. Second, are reasonable accommodation being made. In other words: beards. In the past employers could say shave etc. Some people won't do that for religious reasons. I'm not sure what that status of this is. Employers could say: don't wear a hat. I'm pretty sure you can wear a yarmulke.

Ultimately there's no perfect logical solution to this, it's a judgement we make as a society.

As a liberal person I'm going to say that hey the entire idea of employers saying "here's what you should look like" is incredibly fraught with danger and perhaps we should regulate that. Annoying as it is I guess I don't have a problem with you not want dirty hippies to sell for you. But what if you want beardless men? That's a classic white sign of professionalism or something. But for various reasons that just doesn't fly with lots of people (e.g. Blacks.) So maybe we outlaw that stricture in the name of discrimination.

On the other hand NO QUARTER FOR BIGOTS. That's it, it's a judgment call and that's my call. Religion is part of your brain. Anything can be your religion. I'm not anti-religion in general but if your religion says that my miscegenated birth is an abomination then we're enemies and I'm not particularly put off by the fact that it's your religion that makes you a dickweed.

BTW this has nothing to do with customers. The customers are either behaved or not. If in my business a swastika tat or loud nasty conversation is enough to get you kicked out then so be it, if not then yeah the Jewish Black guy better get them their iced teas.
posted by Wood at 8:48 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

even if others can be found to do the very thing that offends her?

This is where I have a problem. What if all the other registrars decide that they don't want to deal with gay people either? At that point people are being prevented from doing something that is legal because the face of the government won't deal with them.

I do things at my job that I don't agree with, I just had to make the decision as to whether or not my disagreement with policy was greater than my desire to continue working here.
posted by quin at 8:49 AM on July 11

Whoa, Wood, I said I most likely would have quit thinking that I just wasn't right for the job. I listed a few reasons I would accept for the boss being unable to reassign me, but it wasn't an exhaustive list. Not being eligible for reassignment would fit easily within that list.

Also, I know what you are saying about employers not being required to accommodate workers, but what if they can? What if it is easy to accommodate a worker's request? Is it reasonable to deny that request just to make the person uncomfortable and pull a power-trip? Most places that deal with unpleasantness (and really, what job doesn't?) understand that some people are more sensitive to some forms of unpleasantness than others, and are thoughtful when assigning workers. If the woman who just had a miscarriage wants to be transferred out of maternity wear, should the department store fire her or ask her to quit because she won't do her job?

I understand that most of this is not quite applicable in the above case, but since we seem to be talking about the rights of employees to ask for accommodation I thought it applied. When I went to get married I had three or four marriage commissioners say "no thanks." Since number six said yes I just told myself "If the rest don't want me, I don't want them," but it would have been a much different story if I had been unable to find someone. If everyone in town had been uncomfortable performing my wedding, I would have expected the government to force them to do it anyway, as their personal beliefs would have restricted my rights under the law.


And from enabling it. You're splitting hairs.
She's not a marriage commissioner, she's a registrar. To my understanding the marriage was already done. Her filing the paperwork was not enabling anything.
posted by arcticwoman at 8:51 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

From the Daily Mail comments section

"Who pays this bill? The innocent council taxpayer. The whole thing is a 'politically correct' disgrace. I wonder if it was a white man who opposed this for the same reason if the same outcome would have occurred?

- David Haslett, Leicester, 10/7/2008 11:50"
posted by fullerine at 8:52 AM on July 11

OK just one more. It's fine to discriminate against religion! Religion can be anything. Even ignoring internet religions if your religion involves multiple wives we discriminate against you. If it involves drugs we discriminate against you. There is no catch all against discriminating against religion unless you say that the discrimination is purely because of the religion. If it's a conflict between a general rule applied to everyone and the religion it is decided on a case-by-case basis and there is no particularly great advantage to religion.

Are Sikhs bringing knives to schools nowadays?
posted by Wood at 8:52 AM on July 11

The job changed.

No, it didn't. The law did (and this is assuming she even signed up before the law changed, anyway).
posted by dirigibleman at 8:53 AM on July 11

After having person after person tell me about how not only should gay people not be allowed to marry, but they should also be hauled out into the street and shot, I asked to be placed on another survey.

And you were still talking to the same bigots, the only difference is that you didn't know.
posted by DreamerFi at 8:55 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

No, it didn't. The law did (and this is assuming she even signed up before the law changed, anyway).

The job changed because the law changed. Thank you for arguing my case for me.
posted by oaf at 8:58 AM on July 11

So, how do you feel about the state employee who resigned rather than see that the flag was at half-mast for Jesse Helms?

If he felt that he was unwilling to do his job and follow the directive, then I don't see a problem with firing him for that. They told him to lower the flag to honor Jesse Helms, not lower the flag to honor Jesse Helms if he likes him. Just like this registrar is supposed to issue civil marriages, not issue civil marriages if she approves of them.
posted by lullaby at 8:58 AM on July 11

Well... arcticwoman, it sounds like a shitty task. It kind of depends on your relationship with your co-workers... maybe they ask for volunteers and would someone think "Well I don't really wan to do it but it's worse for her because she's gay so I'll help out." or they might just whistle and look at the ceiling or their fingers and you'd realize you work with jerks and that's gonna have a bunch of suckitude to it. But they might not be bigots, they might just be tired people trying to get a pay check with the minimum amount of trouble and maybe they don't see you as someone they're going to go to trouble for.

So... for what it's worth, I'd help you out because I'm a nice guy. But if my coworker was a homophobe who didn't want to call gay people? Hah, she's not getting any help from me.

That is problematic though. If I'm a boss & I consistently show a pattern of letting the Christians move around but not the gays (or vice versa) then sue. But if I'm just a equal-opportunity jerk and no one gets to choose their assignments then you're stuck.

(Even letting the coworkers such as myself express our biases would be a problem.)

So I guess I can see that you might have a suit. But even-handed lack of accommodation is a get-out-of-jail-free card in this case.
posted by Wood at 9:00 AM on July 11

NO ONE IS FORCING HER TO BE A PUBLIC SERVANT.

That's not the issue; the change in her job constituted a requirement by the government that she do things she hadn't been previously required to do.

What if all the other registrars decide that they don't want to deal with gay people either?

It's doubtful that they all would, and they could easily require all new hires to do so, because they'd know the job requirements coming in. In the meantime, put this clerk in a back room, doing something else, and let the new employees and the old employees who don't object on religious grounds (or other grounds that form a prohibited basis of discrimination) file the paperwork. If there aren't any who don't object, hire some.

Her filing the paperwork was not enabling anything.

Why was filing the paperwork necessary, then, if it was meaningless?
posted by oaf at 9:03 AM on July 11

The job changed because the law changed.

The job had always been to perform marriages within the confines of the law.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:05 AM on July 11

Your act of civil disobedience is someone else's bigoted action.

And the actor should expect to be punished, possibly by losing their job.

This came up long ago on another thread, and a better example was given. What if you're a doctor in 1930s Germany, and suddenly the requirements of your job include performing non-consensual abortions on Gypsies and killing Downs children with lethal injections?

You do one of three things - you can always do one of these three things*:

Flee - quit your job.
Assent - do your changed job.
Resist - and expect to be punished.

There is no option four:

Resist - and expect to get away with it.

That's just not how it works, in Godwinland, or in lefty Islington. Taking a moral position in opposition to authority has personal costs (or the risk of them.) Whether you're right ("I'm not doing that procedure, Nazi scum!") or wrong ("I'm not teaching white and black kids together, Commie!") a moral position has a personal cost.

If it doesn't? It isn't a moral position. It's another, permitted alternative position. And that's why people in this thread who dislike homophobia are so against this woman.

It's not just a management problem. If she can take this position without cost then it's a permitted alternative that's perfectly okay. If she can take this position then being a homophobic bigot is perfectly okay by the Government.
posted by alasdair at 9:06 AM on July 11 [6 favorites]

The job had always been to perform marriages within the confines of the law.

OK, so the law changed, so the job changed. What part of that don't you get?
posted by oaf at 9:08 AM on July 11

OK, so the law changed, so the job changed.

No, the job is still to perform marriages within the confines of the law.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:09 AM on July 11

These gay ceremonies were clearly put here as a test. You passed with flying colours, Zealot Lillian! Mount your trusty T-Rex and join Jesus in the stars, cavorting with a 4,000 year old Adam and all three gods, at once!
posted by davemee at 9:10 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

oaf - yes, we all agree, the tasks of this job changed in some fashion. This is the real world - job descriptions and the resulting duties change all the time. And employees are expected to do those new tasks. You can't just say, "I'm going to do it the old way, and you can't fire me for that." BECAUSE OF COURSE THEY CAN FIRE YOU.
posted by CaptApollo at 9:17 AM on July 11

This kind of thing just pisses me off no end. If you don't want to do Job_A properly, then hit the road and look for a Job_B that you find acceptable. Every time we excuse someone from doing their job because of this or that prejudice, we become just a little less moral as a society. It's a slippery slope and the best way to deal with slippery slopes is to never move down the slope at all, not even a little.

All employers should simply lay out the duties that the job entails, and explain that none of the duties are optional. If you're unwilling to do the job in its entirety, then...next applicant!
posted by jamstigator at 9:18 AM on July 11

konolia: It's not a matter of being offended. It's a matter of being forced to violate one's religious convictions. Which is discriminatory toward said religion. As long as all faiths are entitled to the same protection, what is the problem?

Now we get to the heart of the matter. This case is not so much about homophobia, really, as it is about the preferential treatment increasingly given in Britain to personal idiosyncracies, no matter how intolerant, providing that they can be packaged as Christian or Muslim (or, to a lesser extent, Sikh, Hindu or Jewish). If by "all faiths" you fully accept each person's right to be a "religion of one", with whatever views they wish, then you're at least consistent, though I can't see how you could run a civil service by allowing anyone to opt out of anything anytime.

If, on the other hand, by "faiths" you mean "big organized religions with political influence" — which is what it means in the UK at the moment — then you are suggesting that society gives in to demands for special treatment from certain groups, solely on the basis of justifications that are internal to those groups' belief systems, while denying that treatment to others. This is profoundly anti-democratic.

(If this woman had said she didn't want to perform gay unions for the sole reason that she found gay people to be horrible and disgusting, she'd never have had a shred of a chance of winning her case, of course. It was because she characterised her distaste as a Christian conviction.)
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 9:22 AM on July 11 [13 favorites]

arcticwoman, thanks for your insight, and I am sorry that you had such a hard time getting married, but congratulations on your perseverance.
posted by Mister_A at 9:37 AM on July 11

"Who pays this bill? The innocent council taxpayer. The whole thing is a 'politically correct' disgrace. I wonder if it was a white man who opposed this for the same reason if the same outcome would have occurred?
- David Haslett, Leicester, 10/7/2008 11:50"

Reminded me of this, which the Mail clearly intended as a 'barbaric brown-skinned foreigners' story, but which, as the comments below reveal, ended up triggering a different reaction among the Mail's gloriously multi-facetedly bigoted readers.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 9:40 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

No, the job is still to perform marriages within the confines of the law.

Which has changed, thus changing the job.
posted by oaf at 9:42 AM on July 11

It's not a matter of being offended. It's a matter of being forced to violate one's religious convictions. Which is discriminatory toward said religion.

"Do X or you're fired" is not the same as being forced to do X, especially not if X applies equally to everyone in your position and is a substantial part of your job description. Jobs "force" people to violate their convictions all the time; if you want to talk "discriminatory", I'd say that's a great way to describe a system in which some convictions will get you out of doing your job, and others will get you canned, depending solely on how popular your belief system is.

Personally, I think that it would have been both nicer and probably wiser to shuffle this registrar's duties rather than firing her, but I also think that expecting someone to either perform the duties of their job or quit is not discriminatory... it's the same expectation that most of us labor under every day of the week, and applies equally no matter what your religion is. We're not talking about something peripheral like "I can't come to work on my sabbath", "I have to wear my special religious item", or "I need to have X holiday off each year", it's "I can't do a significant part of my job". IMHO, there is no reasonable accommodation for that -- if you're Muslim or Jewish, it is not reasonable for you to demand full pay as a butcher in a secular shop and simultaneously refuse to touch half of the meat; if you're Christian, it is not reasonable for you to demand full pay as a registrar and simultaneously refuse to touch a bunch of the registrations.

It's one thing to ask for accommodation if your religion requires you to do your job a bit differently, while still completing your tasks, but I think it's another if you expect to be accommodated because you refuse to do part of the job itself. The proper thing to do in this situation is to ask if an alternate job description can be worked out, and, if rebuffed, find a job which does not involve breaking your religious vows.
posted by vorfeed at 9:44 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

So, how do you feel about the state employee who resigned rather than see that the flag was at half-mast for Jesse Helms?

He should be (and basically was) fired for not doing his job. Then there should be a massive party in his honor, at which he is given blowjobs and cake and the keys to an Ferrari.
posted by nicwolff at 9:45 AM on July 11 [10 favorites]

Pastabagel: Reverse it. The waiter is black and the customers are racists. The waiter is made uncomfortable or is offended by the customers. Can the restaurant require the waiter to serve that table? If not, are the racist patrons being denied service by having a smaller pool of waiter who can serve them?

That's the analogy. In both cases, the worker's fundamental right (to religion, or freedom from racial discrimination) is offended by the patron (regardless of your opinion of the offense), and the legal issue is whether they can be forced into the offensive situation.

Ahh, someone brings the stupid early. Places of business are only required to make "reasonable accommodation" for the religious and political beliefs of their employees. If the employee's desired accommodation poses an "undue burden" on the employer, then the business is not obligated to accept the accommodation, and the employee can be forced into the offensive situation or dismissed.

And the rudeness of a client or customer isn't racial discrimination.

And of course, this is comparing apples and oranges because it compares a private business, to a government office.

Again, imagine a slightly different scenario that isn't aligned ex ante with your political beliefs. Imagine you are gay and your work in the office that grants permits for demonstrations. A anti-gay group files for a petition. Assume that the political climate is such that a successful demonstration by this group will dissuade lawmakers from passing some gay rights bill.

Do you do your "fucking job" at that point?

Well, I am queer and believe that the harm of imposing prior restraint on political speech, thus violating the First Amendment rights of people like Fred Phelps is likely a greater problem than what outrage Phelps can muster. The best strategy would be to grant the permit, and then get the word out to some local activists about what is going down and when.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:46 AM on July 11

So, how do you feel about the state employee who resigned rather than see that the flag was at half-mast for Jesse Helms?

I think he refused to honor a fellow civil servant who refused to adapt when the law, and therefore the job, of representing more than just the white people of NC changed.
posted by trondant at 9:49 AM on July 11

The job changed. The religious beliefs didn't.

To split hairs even further than dirigibleman: the job didn't change - the number of potential customers/clients did. In fact, that number became more inclusive of society as a whole.

The only thing that prevented her from continuing to perform exactly the same actions her job required for these additional people was her religiously inspired bigotry irrationality magic-thing-that-is-religious. She is no longer a public servant, but a public-I-approve-of servant, which is something quite different.
posted by Sparx at 9:49 AM on July 11 [3 favorites]

She should have resigned, end of story. If my job description changed tomorrow to include scrubbing toilets, I would resign rather than do it. Or my employer would be well within their rights to fire me.
I do not have a right to a job, much less to a job that never displeases me.

Anyway, good Christians are expected to accept suffering for their religion - Jesus said so. Finding another job sure beats mud-wrestling with a hungry Roman lion.
posted by bashos_frog at 9:55 AM on July 11

So what a lot of you are saying is that it is just fine to discriminate against someone's religion.

You want your rights and at the same time you want to deny someone theirs. And rather than let someone make a commonsense accomodation (the kind of thing that here in the states is legally required for disabilities, for example) you would much rather she have to choose to leave her job. Because you don't care about her right to worship as she chooses and to honor her God.

Whether or not she should quit is her choice to make. I think it is wrong to force her to have to make that choice when it is totally unnecessary. And I think that people who demand their own rights at the expense of someone else's are hypocrites. No matter whose rights are being discussed.

I've said my piece here.
posted by konolia at 9:56 AM on July 11

Let me second what Wood said:

NO QUARTER FOR BIGOTS.

Period. End of statement.

She's a bigot, fuck her. I don't give a damn about her precious "feelings", I could care less what her nutbag "religion" says, fuck her. No quarter, no giving in, no cutting slack, no looking at it from her side, no nothing. She's a bigoted asshole, and she's making a fuss in hopes of getting special treatment for her bigotry, fire her ass and hire a non-crazy person.

Sound vindictive? That's because it is. You don't win by being nice. You win by knocking them down and then kicking them while they're down. I want to see her, and all her evil cohorts, suffer.

NO QUARTER FOR BIGOTS.

oaf The job changed? So what? We're supposed to say "oh, poor little bigot, boo hoo, let me go out of my way to accommodate your bigot insanity"? Fuck that noise. The proper response is: "fine bigot, don't let the door hit you on your way out, enjoy living on welfare, hope you never get another job again you evil fucker".

Why?

Because think of the alternative. The alternative is to kowtow to her insane religion, to say to homosexuals "yes, we agree that you are sub-human slime so we're helping this bigoted fucktard keep her (taxpayer funded) job, homosexuality is evil and wrong." That's the message *ANY* accommodation of her pernicious evil sends. Force the bigots into the closet and let them see how they like it. Don't like serving queers? Suck it up bigot. I'll take great pleasure in watching them howl as, for once, for a change, they are made to suffer.

Let them worry, let them fear for their jobs, for once let the bigot feel what the homosexual has felt for centuries. Let them cower in the closet and worry that any action that outs them as a bigot will lose them their jobs, their homes, and their families.
posted by sotonohito at 9:56 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

(In other words, the gay marriages are in no danger of not getting registered here. Just wanted to make my last point clear.)
posted by konolia at 9:57 AM on July 11

bigot

That word does not mean what you think it means.
posted by konolia at 9:58 AM on July 11

I had a friend who worked in Human Resources in Seattle. One day during conversation my friend mentions that there have people who claim to be vampires working for them, who say they cannot work during the day. They threaten to sue under rights protection clauses if they can't work third shift all the time. I don't see any news stories about cases like that, but it does speak to the whole invidual-religion thing, to an extent.
posted by cashman at 9:59 AM on July 11

The whole thing about "the law changed the job" is bullshit. If you work for the government, you know that the laws and regulations are going to change from year to year. You don't get the option of deciding that you will perform your duty based on last year's tax code, or only give the motor vehicle competency exam from the year you were hired.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:59 AM on July 11 [3 favorites]

From an article in the San Diego Union Tribune about the discomfort of county clerk's office employees with performing same-sex marriage ceremonies:

One employee initially asked to opt out of issuing licenses and performing ceremonies for gay couples because of “religious beliefs.” Two days later, the employee reversed course.

“I have given my decision some thought. As a county employee it is my responsibility to support my department; and uphold the state's decision,” the employee wrote.
posted by blucevalo at 10:00 AM on July 11

I've said my piece here.

Like the instantrimshot site, somebody needs to make fingernailhuffcuffbuff.com
posted by cashman at 10:01 AM on July 11

Let them worry, let them fear for their jobs, for once let the bigot feel what the homosexual has felt for centuries.

Committing more "bigotry" in the name of those against whom "bigotry" has been committed in the past (especially going back centuries or millennia) always ends well. Guaranteed.
posted by blucevalo at 10:05 AM on July 11

Because you don't care about her right to worship as she chooses and to honor her God while continuing to receive taxpayers' money to hold down a job that is incompatible with her beliefs.. Please stop pretending that anybody is encroaching on anybody's right to worship here.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 10:08 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

If you're a jew and that's all I know but that's enough for me to know I don't want you at Harvard then that's "bad discrimination."

If your religion is political then Welcome to the Thunderdome. Are people seriously asking not to be judged based on their moral beliefs?
posted by Wood at 10:10 AM on July 11

konolia: So what a lot of you are saying is that it is just fine to discriminate against someone's religion.

You want your rights and at the same time you want to deny someone theirs. And rather than let someone make a commonsense accomodation (the kind of thing that here in the states is legally required for disabilities, for example) you would much rather she have to choose to leave her job. Because you don't care about her right to worship as she chooses and to honor her God.

Refusing to perform one of the duties of a job, thus shifting the burden onto other employees can easily be an "undue burden" that doesn't require accommodation. And for that matter, employers are not required to provide accommodation around "bona fide" job requirements. If one of the duties of the job stated up-front is to certify all properly submitted government forms and applications, that office is not obligated to accommodate individual objections to specific forms. If the job requires 24/7 availability, the employer is not obligated to accommodate a desire for sunday, the sabbath or Christmas.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:12 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

Which has changed, thus changing the job.

Let's put aside the fact that this is the stupidest argument I have ever been dragged into, and accept your premise that the job changed from "perform all legal marriages, except the ones you're uncomfortable performing" to "perform all legal marriages, including the ones you're uncomfortable performing." It's a red herring. The worker is refusing to perform the duties of her job as laid out, and thus should no longer be employed in said position.

Well, unless the courts decide that "anti-gay bigot" is a protected class.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:12 AM on July 11

oaf: what, do you really think people's jobs never change? People are commonly required to take on new job responsibilities; "waah, that's not how it was when I was hired so I won't do it" is typically not a valid excuse for failing to carry out your job.

If my job changed so that the job description included something which violated my conscience, and the boss wasn't willing to accommodate me with alternate duties, I'd either acquiesce, quit, or expect to be fired. I don't think "non-discriminatory" is the proper word for a system which allows only some classes of people to sue in this circumstance.

And rather than let someone make a commonsense accomodation (the kind of thing that here in the states is legally required for disabilities, for example) you would much rather she have to choose to leave her job.

The problem is, "I flat-out refuse to do part of my job" does not always require accommodation in the eyes of the law. For example, here is a case in which an assistance counselor was fired because she wouldn't counsel gays; the firing was upheld because accommodation would lead to an uneven workload (this seems directly applicable to the case under discussion). There was also a deaf-interpreter who was fired for refusing to sign swear-words -- the firing was upheld, because the job of interpreter necessarily involves signing swear-words. Here's one in which a Christian truck driver refused to share a truck with a woman he wasn't married to; also upheld, because it upset the company seniority policy.

At any rate, it's a bit of a moot point, since this happened in England, not "here in the states"... but religious accommodation law is by no means cut-and-dried, and does not mean that employers have to do anything and everything to accommodate religious employees.
posted by vorfeed at 10:27 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS EQUAL RIGHTS. Even and especially the ones I happen to disagree with. I don't necessarily LIKE DAT, but if I want to have the freedom to daydream about Jenny McCarthy wearing Jim Carrey's bathing suit, then everyone else needs to have equal rights so my rights aren't stripped. That's how it works. Everyone, or no one.

This Christian registrar lady person whatever has the right NOT to perform same sex marriages if it is against her beliefs. Just like I don't wanna be force fed brussel sprouts cuz I think they're gross. That's my belief. I don't like them. I'm sure the brussel sprouts of the world are very upset with me but that's my decision.

If this woman's job includes performing same sex marriages and she was told that up front, then she should be fired for not doing her job. I can't go up to my boss and say I can't do what I was hired to do cuz it's against my religion. She'd laugh at me. Then she'd fire me. Then she'd laugh some more.

If this woman's job CHANGED because of the political bullshit that she has no control over, and she walks in one day and is told she now has to perform duties different than they were when she was hired, and those changes go against her personal beliefs, THEN she has a right to complain. If she and her employer can come to an arrangement temporarily then that's great. If they can't, she starts looking for a job where they won't make her do things against her personal beliefs.

If this woman wants to make a public spectacle of herself and turn this into a political statement? THERE'S FREE SPEECH ZONES! SHE CAN GO DO THAT THERE!

Personally I'm all for same-sex marriages. Not cuz I'm gay. Not cuz I support the gay agenda. Despite the fact male gay porn is about as gross to me as brussel sprouts, I got nothing personal against that whole thing. To each his own and all that. More power to 'em. I support the idea of equality regardless of sexual orientation. I support it from a relatively safe distance while inside my bunker wearing a radiation suit, but first I check the bunker and suit for spiders, cuz they freak me the fuck out.

I happen to despise the institution of marriage, and hope to live to see humanity realize how hypocritical and deprived and false and stupid and insidious and despicable and insane and pointless and backwater and manipulative and destructive and wrong the institution has become. Gay men married? Why the hell not? Let's marry those pandas while we're at it. Let's marry plantlife to sperm whales. I don't give a shit, cuz marriage is for pussies! not that I'm bitter...
posted by ZachsMind at 10:31 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

pastabagel: Reverse it. The waiter is black and the customers are racists. The waiter is made uncomfortable or is offended by the customers. Can the restaurant require the waiter to serve that table? If not, are the racist patrons being denied service by having a smaller pool of waiter who can serve them?

Being obnoxious and being black are two different things.
posted by jabberjaw at 10:35 AM on July 11

konolia : You want your rights and at the same time you want to deny someone theirs.

Purely as an exercise in hypotheticalness, what if the situation were an atheist or a Muslim who was, as a part of his job, required to determine the tax exempt status of an organization and refused to do any paperwork for Christian churches because of reasons of personal principle. Would you still feel right in defending them?
posted by quin at 10:35 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

NO QUARTER FOR BIGOTS.

No quarter for sotonohito, at his very own request!
posted by oaf at 10:43 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

This thread is a lot better than any of the shite I've read elsewhere about this case. game warden to the events rhino should get $5.
posted by chuckdarwin at 10:48 AM on July 11

As long as gay employees are allowed to refuse to service straight customers, I see no problem with this.
posted by troybob at 10:51 AM on July 11

The job changed. The religious beliefs didn't.

The job changed because the law changed.
posted by oaf

Lovely example of an eponysterical argument.

So, if our job is affected by a certain law, and that law changes to something we don't like, we get to keep on doing our jobs while ignoring the law and our employer has to suck it up and take it? Awesome. Does that work for things other than the law, like general workplace standards, requirements, anything like that?

Or does that only work if you believe in an all-powerful invisible being?

Obviously the morals of people who aren't religious are just personal opinions and should not be protected, only the faithful, right?

Or would you also argue that anyone anywhere has the right to refuse changes in their job responsibilities without being fired for it?
posted by splice at 10:52 AM on July 11

So what a lot of you are saying is that it is just fine to discriminate against someone's religion.

If their religion prevents them from performing a core function of their job, yes.

You want your rights and at the same time you want to deny someone theirs.

She doesn't have a right to a job.

And rather than let someone make a commonsense accomodation (the kind of thing that here in the states is legally required for disabilities, for example)

It's not true that it's a commensense accomodation, nor is it a legal requirement in the states for an employer to continue employing someone who becomes disabled to the point that they can no longer perform the core duties of their job. That's why many of us carry long-term disability insurance.

you would much rather she have to choose to leave her job. Because you don't care about her right to worship as she chooses and to honor her God.

No one's preventing her from worshipping or honoring her God, except to the extent that "worshipping" or "honoring" prevent her from actually doing her job.

I think it is wrong to force her to have to make that choice when it is totally unnecessary.

It's not unnecessary. She refuses to perform a core duty of her job, and the only "accomodation" requires an increased workload for the other employees.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:53 AM on July 11

konolia writes: You want your rights and at the same time you want to deny someone theirs. And rather than let someone make a commonsense accomodation (the kind of thing that here in the states is legally required for disabilities, for example) you would much rather she have to choose to leave her job.

The comparison of bigotry to a disability is apt.
posted by anifinder at 10:56 AM on July 11 [2 favorites]

I don't generally equate an act civil disobedience on the part of a major political figure with the bigoted actons of a city clerk... so I'll have to think about this.

In other words, laws with which you agree are fair and just, and those who object to them should be sternly disciplined, whereas laws with which you disagree are unfair and wrong, and those who disregard them should be commended. Very convenient.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:56 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

JabberJaw: "Being obnoxious and being black are two different things."

Unless you're Chris Rock in Lethal Weapon IV cuz... dayam!
posted by ZachsMind at 11:01 AM on July 11

In some contexts a person refusing to do a job for reasons of morality are often called "conscientious objectors." This is not normally seen as a bad thing. In fact, it is often applauded and at very least respected as their right. In other contexts a person refusing to do their job (specifically in a context in which maintaining company secrets is part of the job) is often called a "whistle blower," and not only are these people often praised, we have laws specifically designed to protect them.

It would seem then that the attitude that one, even a civil servant, should just "do his or her job." Is entirely too simplistic. I'd suggest that such an attitude is often very, very bad to the health of society.

The obligation to refuse to compromise one's moral beliefs trumps any obligation to an employer. (And no, "he or she should just quit" is not an adequate response. Why should a person deprive themselves of income and an otherwise good job because they wish to defend their morals?)
posted by oddman at 11:03 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

offended, disgusted, morally opposed or complete lack of interest in any social problems associated with anothers choice of behavior - none of these is a phobia.

Unless that offense, disgust, or moral opposition to said behavior is based on irrational fears. Then the response is a phobia. Homophobia, specifically, with respect to fears of same-sex couples who just want to get married.

I find it fascinating when people get upset and defensive at being called homophobes. They know their fears are irrational, so instead of dealing with their bigotry they rail against the label they've earned, desperately calling it anything else but what it really is.

They can't deal with their own problems, and so instead they strong-arm the government and bully others to project their fears onto gay people.

It's a mental pathology — if gay folks weren't involved, and the target was some other minority, these bigots would be called sociopaths. But we have apologia like that above, which tries to reinvent this sickness into something — anything — else.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:05 AM on July 11

oddman writes: Why should a person deprive themselves of income and an otherwise good job because they wish to defend their morals?

If you aren't willing to sacrifice anything to defend a moral belief, then it is not a moral belief.
posted by anifinder at 11:05 AM on July 11

I do wonder what other practices her "orthodox Christian beliefs'' should be excluding her from...

Seeking "huge monetary payouts" from litigation?

Oops, guess not!
posted by nanojath at 11:05 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

Man, those fundamentalists working at abortion clinics have got it made--full-time coffee break!
posted by troybob at 11:06 AM on July 11

It would seem then that the attitude that one, even a civil servant, should just "do his or her job." Is entirely too simplistic.

And you would uphold this assessment if a white supremacist asserted the "moral" right to refuse to serve interracial couples?
posted by nanojath at 11:09 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]

In other words, laws with which you agree are fair and just, and those who object to them should be sternly disciplined, whereas laws with which you disagree are unfair and wrong, and those who disregard them should be commended. Very convenient.

People who disobey a just law should be punished. People who disobey an unjust law, at least for the purposes of civil disobedience, should be commended. They should not be punished, because the unjust law should not exist, but they should expect to be punished. So, your argument presents a false dichotomy, and I'm not sure how your thinly-veiled accusation of hypocracy applies.
posted by dirigibleman at 11:13 AM on July 11 [1 favorite]