Public functionaries and "conscience clause"

[Martinus]

Do you think any of the following (in each case, assume that the relevant action, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. is legal) is acceptable (i.e. a person doing so does not face any negative consequences, including dismissal), if done for religious or ideological reasons:

- a judge of peace (or local equivalent) refusing to officiate a (civil) marriage for a gay couple,
- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,
- a gynecologist refusing to perform abortion,
- a pharmacist refusing to sell contraceptives,
- a grocery store clerk refusing to handle pork,
- a surgeon refusing to conduct blood transfussions,
- a bus driver refusing to drive a bus with an ad of a Republican party painted on it,
- a policeman refusing to take a crime report from a black person,
- an attorney refusing to defend a Jewish person.

Please justify your response especially if you think some of these are acceptable and others are not.

[CountDeMoney]

First, you use the term "public functionaries", then you use the terms "religious or ideological reasons" which are privately held convictions.

There's plenty of room for you to bitch about something, Marty, you don't have to square-peg round-hole your argument.  Numbnuts.

Lulz, he said "round-hole".

[Viking]

These people are denying people public services for ideological reasons. If you have a job you are bound by the job description. I am not insensitive to such moral quandries so the standard that needs to be set is not one where you are obliged to perform a task you find morally reprehensible but rather that it is satisfactory if the task is performed.

Basically if your morals deny the public access to public services you have to either go against your morals or quit (or be fired).

[Ed Anger]

This smells like a trap.

[Neil]

Fags are damaging to society, and so don't deserve to share equally in the benefits.

[CountDeMoney]

These people are denying people public services for ideological reasons.

Not all of these services are public.  And not all of these service providers are, either.

If you have a job you are bound by the job description.

Not necessarily.

Basically if your morals deny the public access to public services you have to either go against your morals or quit (or be fired).

Not necessarily, as you probably wouldn't have been hired in the first place. 

[Barrister]

Some of those positions are more public than others.  At least around here being a JP is often either a part-time, or merely an honourary, position.  A shopkeeper isn't public at all.  Doctors and pharmacists aren't public servants, even though ultimately it is the government which pays.

[grumbler]

I don't understand much of the question - too many examples that are not equivalent.

Can a gynecologist refuse to perform abortions?  Sure.  It doesn't have to be for religious reasons, either.  Ditto for a lawyer declining to accept someone as a client (though, obviously, a public defender cannot decline to represent a given client for religious or ideological reasons).  JPs are not, I believe, required to perform any particular service for any particular person, so one could get away with refusing service on other grounds, though not, I believe, or religious or ideological ones.   Ditto for pharmacists, except that they probably could get away with religious claims.

Grocery clerks are not government employees or "functionaries," insofar as I know.  No surgeon of which i am aware does blood transfusions him/herself.   

The adoption agency, (public) bus driver, and policeman examples would all be unacceptable to pretty much everyone, I should think.

[Zanza]

- a judge of peace (or local equivalent) refusing to officiate a (civil) marriage for a gay couple,

Marriages are officiated by civil servants here. As long as the state does provide that service equally, I don't have a problem with allowing individual civil servants to refuse to officiate over gay marriages. No one is harmed and no one is forced to do something against their conscience. Win-win.

- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,

Illegal discrimination.

- a gynecologist refusing to perform abortion,
- a pharmacist refusing to sell contraceptives,
- a grocery store clerk refusing to handle pork,

These aren't public functionaries and they are free to do whatever they want.

- a surgeon refusing to conduct blood transfussions,

That's probably against the Hippocratic Oath and thus illegal.

- a bus driver refusing to drive a bus with an ad of a Republican party painted on it,

That's just an issue between him and his employer. Bus drivers aren't public functionaries.

- a policeman refusing to take a crime report from a black person,

Clearly illegal.

- an attorney refusing to defend a Jewish person.

He's probably an asshole but as long as he is not a public defender I don't see why he would have to.

[PDH]

Thread needs more bad analogies.

[grumbler]

Thread needs more bad analogies.

A question that presumes lawyers have any conscience at all is like a question that presumes that fish have bank accounts.

[mongers]

Thread needs more bad analogies.

People who refuse to post in this thread, cannot use the "conscience clause" defence as languish is a public service.

[Martinus]

- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,

Illegal discrimination.

Would your answer be different if they were refusing to service same sex couples?

[Razgovory]

This smells like a trap.

It smells like Marty embarrassing himself again.

[HVC]

You know, since you were going there anyway, you should have just started there. You don't do circuitous well