Posted on 09/27/2011 11:59:59 AM PDT by IbJensen
What about the divorce example? Marriage applications in many states (including NY) ask for plenty of information about previous marriage/divorces. Should a town clerk who is Catholic (or another religion that does not believe in divorce/remarriage) be able to refuse to sign off on marriage licenses where one or both parties were previously married?
Religious freedom is constitutional--meaning it trumps all other laws. You cannot say, you MUST OBEY, until the law is changed--when it comes to longstanding religious conviction.
The government has always made reasonable accommodation to persons of faith--over long-standing religious convictions. For example, Mennonites during WWII were not FORCED to fight in the Army--since pacifist non-violence is a long standing essential to their religion. Many Mennonites and other pacifist Anabaptists DID serve in the military during WWII, but in non-combatant positions (Medics, in hospitals, food service, etc)--where they were not required to violate their conscience.
To try to CRUSH a woman's career, who, very discreetly, merely asked for appointments to get marriage licenses--in an office which only does 10 licenses a year, is very definitely the State running roughshod over freedom of conscience--on a VERY controversial issue.
This proves once again--as I've warned in FR forums over and over--homosexual rights and religious freedom are NOT compatible.
Forceable tolerance. It’s a cousin to compulsory philanthropy.
License applications ask questions about marriage and divorce for purely legal reasons. The morality of divorce and remarriage (or even marriage—since civil-marriage is not recognized by some religions) is complicated, and its ethics therefore always been seen as the responsibility of the applicants.
Your example is imaginary though, as I’m unaware of any clerks refusing for religious reasons to sign off on legal papers about divorce and remarriage. I know of no Church authorities or religions that would require them to either.
However, signing off on something VERY OBVIOUS, that religious conviction says is always and everywhere highly immoral—an “abomination” using the biblical word, has an order of magnitude difference.... The State is crushing religious freedom when it requires people to approve of homosexual unions.
So I take it you think during WWII pacifist Mennonites should of been required to be in the infantry like everyone else?
Again, religious freedom in the USA has always meant ACCOMMODATING sincerely held religious convictions. To force a public servant from her job, just because a bunch of sexual perverts want her to go is just not right.
She never refused a marriage license to a homosexual couple, only had another official sign them—a reasonable accommodation to the homosexuals AND her religious conviction.
I think you would have German concentration camp guards gas the prisoners—because, after all, it was done according to law—and officials are obligated to obey the law, right?
I take it also you support laws that force pharmacists—totally against conscience—to dispense birth control and the morning after pill—just because it was a legally passed law?
And Doctors, in a public hospital to perform abortions—when told to do so by law?
Not accommodating sincerely held religious beliefs—is well along the road to fascist totalitarianism....and is exactly what the statists demand—as the only true religion to them is the State itself.
Such is not a nation of laws, but of tyranny against conscience.
placemark
READ THE ARTICLE:
She never refused a marriage license to ANYONE. In this very small town—which issues TEN (10) marriage licenses a year. She only changed the policy to an appointment only schedule—to allow her to arrange for someone else—without her ethics...—to sign the license approving the perverted “marriage.”
It was a very reasonable accommodation of her religious conviction, given the circumstances. But of course for the sexual perverts, that’s not enough, until everyone cheers “IT’S RIGHT!!!!IT’S RIGHT!!!” congratulating them for their disgusting practices....they will never be satisfied. (Of course even then, they will not be satisfied...)
ANYONE WHO DISAGREES MUST THROWN OUT OF THEIR JOBS AND PUNISHED!!!!
Again, the people need to change the law.
And while the law is what it currently is, she has to somehow accommodate all people who can legally marry.
“But, until then the clerks will be forced to comply with the law, just as they were forced to comply with the law prior to the legalization of gay marriage.”
Lex mala, lex nulla. No person is under any moral compunction to obey that law, or to submit to punishment for refusing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.