TN House passes bill allowing county clerks to refuse marriage licenses on religious grounds

[GeorgiaModerate]

According to the bill, which passed Monday night, “a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage if the person has an objection to solemnizing the marriage based on the person’s conscience or religious beliefs.”

The bill, which now moves to the state Senate, is the latest in an onslaught of measures that the Tennessee legislature has passed attacking LGBTQ rights. This bill could also apply to couples where at least one partner is transgender, or to mixed race couples.

https://newrepublic.com/post/171025/tennessee-house-bill-gutting-marriage-equality

Tennessee continues its attempt to outrace Florida into the past.

[HillGoose]

ohhh man this is the reason my wife and i couldnt get married in the court house (county clerk would have to officiate gay weddings if he did any court house weddings at all apparently) but DANG at least they had to give us a license!

otherwise idk where we would have had to go, bcuz i know its about the lgbt marriages right now, but i wonder how long it will be until some TYRANT local govt official decides to deny a marriage license bcuz there is a couple where one is "white" and one is "other" in the race section on the paperwork!

WAKE UP SHEEPLE! SEE THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!

it is only a matter of time until the govt only lets u get married if u put a BIG GOVT SURVEILLANCE CAMERA in ur bedroom so that BIG GOVT TYRANTS can WATCH U WHILE U SLEEP

[Alben Barkley]

Oh not this Kim Davis s--t again.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The writer of this article didn't notice that the text was amended before it passed.  It now just says "A person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage."
https://legiscan.com/TN/amendment/HB0878/id/160292

[Yoda]

Must be nice to be bale to pick and choose when you want to do your cushy, taxpayer-funded job. I don't think it would go over too well at my job if, for example, I had refused to interact with the guy wearing the 'Let's Go Brandon' shirt at my job a couple weeks back.

[SteveRogers]

The writer of this article didn't notice that the text was amended before it passed.  It now just says "A person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage."
https://legiscan.com/TN/amendment/HB0878/id/160292

So what do you think the law does now?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Marriage shouldn't be a publicly involved institution at all, it should be handled purely by private individuals without any state recognition.

[DrScholl]

If you are so religious then you should avoid professions that offend your religion, like being a county clerk that has to certify legal marriages that offend your religion.

[SnowLabrador]

Goodbye Obergefell, it was nice knowing you.

[Ferguson97]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

[TDAS04]

Marriage shouldn't be a publicly involved institution at all, it should be handled purely by private individuals without any state recognition.

You say that now because marriage equality is the law of the land.  You SoCons were fine with marriage being a public institution when it was only allowed for opposite-sex couples.

While it technically wouldn't violate the equal protection clause to allow civil unions for everyone, while leaving religious institutions to call it "marriage" or whatever, even straight couples who have been involved in civil marriage for years wouldn't like it if they're suddenly no longer "married" in the eyes of the law.  They wouldn't appreciate it if they are suddenly only "civil unioned" as far as the law goes. Not realistic.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The writer of this article didn't notice that the text was amended before it passed.  It now just says "A person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage."
https://legiscan.com/TN/amendment/HB0878/id/160292

So what do you think the law does now?

I don't know. One might hope a journalist at a formerly respectable publication would look into why this bill was amended if they were writing an article on it, but that would require them noticing it was amended in the first place.

[Holmes]

Goodbye Obergefell, it was nice knowing you.

Not sure if you were made aware the Respect for Marriage Act was signed into law last year. Or if you think that, somehow, for some reason, same-sex marriage will make its way to the Supreme Court and the justices would even agree to take the case. Because even if they do and overturn Obergefell, same-sex marriage is codified in federal law, whereas abortion was not. For this reason alone, I doubt the court would take up the issue. There would be no point unless they just wanted to specifically say "f.ck this ruling". I know Thomas has whined about it a lot but I doubt the other justices gaf.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

Absolutely not.  I hate this argument with respect to so many jobs (I also hear it about pharmacists, among others).  It's discrimination to limit the number of jobs (that aren't engaged in activism/issue stances) that Christians can do without violating their faith.

[DrScholl]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

Absolutely not.  I hate this argument with respect to so many jobs (I also hear it about pharmacists, among others).  It's discrimination to limit the number of jobs (that aren't engaged in activism/issue stances) that Christians can do without violating their faith.

If you cannot meet a job's requirements because of your religious beliefs then it is not discrimination on the part of the employer. It's not up to employers to make jobs that respect religious beliefs. Furthermore, most Christians aren't going to become adult film stars even though it pays a lot, so clearly they can be selective about which jobs to take when they want to.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

Absolutely not.  I hate this argument with respect to so many jobs (I also hear it about pharmacists, among others).  It's discrimination to limit the number of jobs (that aren't engaged in activism/issue stances) that Christians can do without violating their faith.

If you cannot meet a job's requirements because of your religious beliefs then it is not discrimination on the part of the employer. It's not up to employers to make jobs that respect religious beliefs. Furthermore, most Christians aren't going to become adult film stars even though it pays a lot, so clearly they can be selective about which jobs to take when they want to.

I probably should have expanded on what I said, but there's a huge difference between the job of an adult film star (where the religious objection to it is THE core component of the job) and a county clerk or pharmacist (where the religious objection is with one small component that isn't the core job responsibility).

[DrScholl]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

Absolutely not.  I hate this argument with respect to so many jobs (I also hear it about pharmacists, among others).  It's discrimination to limit the number of jobs (that aren't engaged in activism/issue stances) that Christians can do without violating their faith.

If you cannot meet a job's requirements because of your religious beliefs then it is not discrimination on the part of the employer. It's not up to employers to make jobs that respect religious beliefs. Furthermore, most Christians aren't going to become adult film stars even though it pays a lot, so clearly they can be selective about which jobs to take when they want to.

I probably should have expanded on what I said, but there's a huge difference between the job of an adult film star (where the religious objection to it is THE core component of the job) and a county clerk or pharmacist (where the religious objection is with one small component that isn't the core job responsibility).

It's not really a small component when a main part of the job is to certify marriages. Same with pharmacists, if you aren't comfortable filling legal prescriptions then you are in the wrong job. When you take a job you know what the requirements are.

[Tekken_Guy]

Goodbye Obergefell, it was nice knowing you.

*in b4 the court rules 7-2 against the bill with only Thomas and Alito dissenting*

[Joe Biden 2028]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

Fun fact: my local dominoes once had a guy who was allergic to gluten  and thus couldn’t touch any dough. My best friend worked there and everyone was annoyed with him because he couldn’t make pizzas, just work the register and answer calls.

[Badger]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

Fun fact: my local dominoes once had a guy who was allergic to gluten  and thus couldn’t touch any dough. My best friend worked there and everyone was annoyed with him because he couldn’t make pizzas, just work the register and answer calls.

If the individual Clerk has those religious views - you know, the ones that won't permit them to issue marriage license to people who are jewish, or otherwise non-Christian believers? Because this is totally not just about the icky gays-- this assumes that then they can get Mabel or Pearl or Misty from the clerk's office to sign off on the license instead rather than denying a same-sex couple a marriage license all together.

[libertpaulian]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

Fun fact: my local dominoes once had a guy who was allergic to gluten  and thus couldn’t touch any dough. My best friend worked there and everyone was annoyed with him because he couldn’t make pizzas, just work the register and answer calls.

If the individual Clerk has those religious views - you know, the ones that won't permit them to issue marriage license to people who are jewish, or otherwise non-Christian believers? Because this is totally not just about the icky gays-- this assumes that then they can get Mabel or Pearl or Misty from the clerk's office to sign off on the license instead rather than denying a same-sex couple a marriage license all together.

Exactly.

Kim Davis' problem wasn't that she couldn't issue the licenses herself, but rather that she forbade her entire staff from issuing them, even if they were inclined to do so.

[Ferguson97]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

Absolutely not.  I hate this argument with respect to so many jobs (I also hear it about pharmacists, among others).  It's discrimination to limit the number of jobs (that aren't engaged in activism/issue stances) that Christians can do without violating their faith.

Suppose there were a religion that opposed the concept of marriage entirely, and that a follower of that religion took a job as a clerk. By your logic, if they refused to issue any marriage certificates at all - on the basis of their religious beliefs - it would be discrimination to fire them for that.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Goodbye Obergefell, it was nice knowing you.

Not sure if you were made aware the Respect for Marriage Act was signed into law last year. Or if you think that, somehow, for some reason, same-sex marriage will make its way to the Supreme Court and the justices would even agree to take the case. Because even if they do and overturn Obergefell, same-sex marriage is codified in federal law, whereas abortion was not. For this reason alone, I doubt the court would take up the issue. There would be no point unless they just wanted to specifically say "f.ck this ruling". I know Thomas has whined about it a lot but I doubt the other justices gaf.

Dude it is F[INKS]ING SNOWLABRADOR.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

The analogy in most cases would be if a vegetarian gets a job making sandwiches at a vegetarian restaurant, but then there's a law instituted that all restaurants must serve meat. Might be worth considering giving leeway on that if possible for people who feel they can't do it rather than making them leave the sandwich-making field altogether.

[Ferguson97]

This is like a vegetarian working at subway and refusing to make any sandwiches with meat on them.

If your beliefs prevent you from performing the duties of your job, then don't take the job.

The analogy in most cases would be if a vegetarian gets a job making sandwiches at a vegetarian restaurant, but then there's a law instituted that all restaurants must serve meat. Might be worth considering giving leeway on that if possible for people who feel they can't do it rather than making them leave the sandwich-making field altogether.

No.

We can debate all day whether or not a bakery should be forced to serve a gay couple, but if you work for the government, you don't get to discriminate. Period.