Public functionaries and "conscience clause"

[Fate]

Actually, I'm most surprised by some of you being fine with the state official refusing to officiate legal marriage. This to me is the most blatant case of discrimination, and the most heinous one.

The state forcing a civil servant to go against his or her conscience is not a good idea either. Just let another civil servant officiate who doesn't have qualms. What's gained by forcing a civil servant to act against their conscience? That won't make for a nice marriage either.

And if it's the 1950s and the civil servant doesn't want to grant services based on race? Let's say he doesn't believe in miscegenation. 

How about we fire civil servants who can't do their jobs without forcing their biases into their work.

[Ideologue]

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.

All of the above are clearly grounds for dismissal if they violate the policies of their employer or applicable regulations or law.

P.S.: only like four or five of those are public functionaries, and one of them is only a public functionary in certain situations which you did not define.

[Ideologue]

Sorry, I see this was already dealt with.

[Zanza]

Actually, I'm most surprised by some of you being fine with the state official refusing to officiate legal marriage. This to me is the most blatant case of discrimination, and the most heinous one.

The state forcing a civil servant to go against his or her conscience is not a good idea either. Just let another civil servant officiate who doesn't have qualms. What's gained by forcing a civil servant to act against their conscience? That won't make for a nice marriage either.

And if it's the 1950s and the civil servant doesn't want to grant services based on race? Let's say he doesn't believe in miscegenation. 

How about we fire civil servants who can't do their jobs without forcing their biases into their work.

I thought a bit more about it and I guess you are right. Officiating on civil marriage is not something that would fall under conscientious issues and it's not necessary to accomodate for whatever worldview a civil servant has. Civil servants need to obey their superiors and fulfill all legal tasks given to them.

One exception that I can think of is police officers that refuse to be the sniper who shoots a kipnapper. Deliberately killing a human is where I would draw the line between what the state may demand of its civil servants and what it may not demand.

[grumbler]

One exception that I can think of is police officers that refuse to be the sniper who shoots a kipnapper.

OMG think of the kips!

[dps]

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.

All of the above are clearly grounds for dismissal if they violate the policies of their employer or applicable regulations or law.

Yep, and whether any of us find them "acceptable" or not has no bearing on the whether or not they violate such laws or policies.

[CountDeMoney]

One exception that I can think of is police officers that refuse to be the sniper who shoots a kipnapper. Deliberately killing a human is where I would draw the line between what the state may demand of its civil servants and what it may not demand.

[Ed Anger]

We ruined the Germans. 

[Scipio]

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,

Yes.  This type of marriage is illegal in 42 jurisdictions in the United States.  Thus, in any one of those jurisdictions, it would be justifiable.  Additionally, in many states, Justices of Peace do not have the power to marry someone.

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

Not in America.

- a gynecologist refusing to perform abortion,

There are literally thousands of legitimate, non-ideological medical reasons to not perform a given abortion.

- a pharmacist refusing to sell contraceptives,

Yes.  If people want to drive away their business, let them.

- a grocery store clerk refusing to handle pork,

Again, other people can do the work.

- a surgeon refusing to conduct blood transfussions,

Generally, surgeons don't do transfusions; they're too busy doing the fucking surgery.  Hematologists or phlebotomists under a hematologist or surgeon's direction would do one.

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

Well, if he wants to lose his job, I understand that 15 million americans are unemployed.  At least one of them has a CDL.

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

Cops refuse to file crime reports all the time.  I think refusing to file a report is a crime, regardless of the circumstances.  It's certainly a violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.

- an attorney refusing to defend a Jewish person.

Yes.  I can refuse to take any case I want as a private attorney.  Now, Jews generally have money, and I generally need money.  So I would defend a Jew, unless they were charged with a felony within the city limits of Hattiesburg, because that would be a clear conflict of interest.  Also, I would have to avoid other conflicts.  So there are literally untold numbers of reasons why and how an attorney could refuse to defend a particular Jew.

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

I generally think this set of questions is a great example of why all other Slavs revile Polacks.

[Barrister]

Cops refuse to file crime reports all the time.  I think refusing to file a report is a crime, regardless of the circumstances.  It's certainly a violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.

[CountDeMoney]

 

There are complaints, and then there are complaints that require reports.

[Eddie Teach]

One exception that I can think of is police officers that refuse to be the sniper who shoots a kipnapper. Deliberately killing a human is where I would draw the line between what the state may demand of its civil servants and what it may not demand.

Not sure why somebody who's against killing would have sniper training to begin with.

[Sheilbh]

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.

All of the above are clearly grounds for dismissal if they violate the policies of their employer or applicable regulations or law.

Basically this.

[MadImmortalMan]

We ruined the Germans. 

Well, he might not shoot him, but he'd eat him.

[CountDeMoney]

We ruined the Germans. 

Well, he might not shoot him, but he'd eat him.

Or shit on him.  In latex.