good luck getting married in Virginia if you are an atheist

[Travis]

So, is this where America is now headed?

Bud Roth is a court appointed officiant in Franklin County, Virginia. He performs wedding ceremonies for couples who go to the courthouse to get married. Atheists, however, have no right to get married as far as he’s concerned.

When Morgan Strong and Tamar Courtney contacted the county courthouse to seal their love for each other after six years together, they were directed to Roth. Roth refused to perform the ceremony at the courthouse and only agreed to marry the couple if they tied the knot at his church. A deal was struck and the cost and date were set. Strong and Courtney would go through the legal part of the ceremony at Roth’s church. That’s when the whole situation turned ugly.

Roth asked the couple about their religious beliefs and upon hearing that he would be performing a ceremony for an atheist and an agnostic, turned the couple away. Why? Because they “didn’t know where God was.” That’s right, Roth refused to marry the couple out of sheer religious bigotry. Disappointed, Morgan and Courtney decided to discuss the situation with Roth and they kindly recorded the conversation.

Upon asking why Roth denied them their right to wed, he replied:

“Because she’s agnostic and you’re an atheist. I will not marry you. You don’t believe in God… I just don’t marry anyone who does not believe in God [or] believes that there is a God someplace. So I’m not going to talk the issue over with you and I’m not going to argue about it, okay? I’m just not going to marry you. Correct?”​

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/31/marriage-only-for-christians/

 

[Ziggurat]

So you found a story about one jackass, and that becomes first an indictment of an entire state, and then a question about the fate of our country as a whole?

I think you missed a few steps in there.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

I'm not sure one guy in one rural county counts for the whole state...

 

[tyr_13]

The coercion into using his church (and paying for it!) is bad enough, but to refuse to legally marry them to each other because of religious beliefs is an insult to our system of government.

EDIT: It may not represent the entire state, but it is condemnable correct everyone?

 

[Ziggurat]

EDIT: It may not represent the entire state, but it is condemnable correct everyone?

Oh definitely, he's an ass, he's not doing his job, and I'm guessing he's even breaking the law.

 

[Chaos]

So you found a story about one jackass, and that becomes first an indictment of an entire state, and then a question about the fate of our country as a whole?

I think you missed a few steps in there.

You have an awful lot of "one jackass"es in your country systemically ignoring any and all laws and constitutional principles they please - and I have yet to see you or any of your right-wing buddies stating loudly and clearly that any of this is not okay and should stop.

 

[xjx388]

Outrageous! Or not . . . Maybe if we apply a little skepticism and look a little deeper. . .

You and the article are misunderstanding what "court-appointed officiant," actually means. There is no such official designation. There are Marriage Commissioners in Virgina which are people (who can be ministers or lay people) authorized by the court to perform marriages. They are not paid by taxpayers; they are paid a fee by the couple ($50 max) to perform the ceremony. As such, they are not employed by the County or State. It amounts to a public listing of people who perform weddings outside traditional churches. Thus, those Marriage Officiants are still free to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit.

So do you think that, in America, people should be forced to violate their religious beliefs simply because they advertise services for hire? So, for example, a doctor should be forced to perform an abortion or prescribe birth control even if they are Catholic?

 

[Ziggurat]

You have an awful lot of "one jackass"es in your country systemically ignoring any and all laws and constitutional principles they please - and I have yet to see you or any of your right-wing buddies stating loudly and clearly that any of this is not okay and should stop.

In a country of 350 million, what counts as "an awful lot"? Seriously, have you actually quantified this, or do you just have a vague impression you're getting from people like Travis who keep complaining nonstop? Furthermore, what is your standard for how much complaining you need to hear from my "right-wing buddies", and why is that the relevant standard?

But you are right, I cannot dispute that we do have a problem with jackasses systematically ignoring any and all laws and constitutional principles they please.

 

[uke2se]

Outrageous! Or not . . . Maybe if we apply a little skepticism and look a little deeper. . .

You and the article are misunderstanding what "court-appointed officiant," actually means. There is no such official designation. There are Marriage Commissioners in Virgina which are people (who can be ministers or lay people) authorized by the court to perform marriages. They are not paid by taxpayers; they are paid a fee by the couple ($50 max) to perform the ceremony. As such, they are not employed by the County or State. It amounts to a public listing of people who perform weddings outside traditional churches. Thus, those Marriage Officiants are still free to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit.

So do you think that, in America, people should be forced to violate their religious beliefs simply because they advertise services for hire? So, for example, a doctor should be forced to perform an abortion or prescribe birth control even if they are Catholic?

Well... yes of course they should be.

Isn't this exactly the same sort of case as the photographers who wouldn't photograph a gay wedding? As I recall, they lost in court.

I could also add that in Sweden, acting like this "court appointed officiant" would constitute a crime punishable by up to 6 months in jail. The crime is called "unlawful discrimination". I'm fairly certain you guys have such a crime as well.

 

[uke2se]

But you are right, I cannot dispute that we do have a problem with jackasses systematically ignoring any and all laws and constitutional principles they please.

Please list them.

On second thought, don't bother. It would almost certainly be stupid, and it would definately be a derail.

 

[Ziggurat]

You and the article are misunderstanding what "court-appointed officiant," actually means. There is no such official designation. There are Marriage Commissioners in Virgina which are people (who can be ministers or lay people) authorized by the court to perform marriages. They are not paid by taxpayers; they are paid a fee by the couple ($50 max) to perform the ceremony. As such, they are not employed by the County or State. It amounts to a public listing of people who perform weddings outside traditional churches. Thus, those Marriage Officiants are still free to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit.

Huh. There's even less to the story than I thought.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's some more info on the story:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...form-civil-ceremony-for-non-religious-couple/

The author if this piece also has his panties in a bunch, but it's pretty clear that this story isn't really that much of a story. Being a marriage commissioner in Virginia is a voluntary position, you can't really make much money off of it, and the court did in fact give the couple the name of a commissioner who did civil non-religious ceremonies.

People keep talking about making Roth do the ceremony, but I don't see how you could possibly compel him to, given that the position is voluntary. The choice is really between letting him do religious ceremonies, and not letting him do any ceremonies at all.

 

[xjx388]

Well... yes of course they should be.

Isn't this exactly the same sort of case as the photographers who wouldn't photograph a gay wedding? As I recall, they lost in court.

Right. And that is hugely problematic, IMHO. It might make us feel good in a "Those stupid Christians got what they deserve!" sense, but I see it as further erosion of the religious freedom that was guaranteed in the Constitution.

I could also add that in Sweden, acting like this "court appointed officiant" would constitute a crime punishable by up to 6 months in jail. The crime is called "unlawful discrimination". I'm fairly certain you guys have such a crime as well.

I'm not aware that discrimination comes with a criminal penalty in the US. I've never heard of such a case. AFAIK, the anti-discrimination laws are civil, not criminal.

In any case, I think a public official, as a representative of our secular form of government, should be impartial. If that person can't be impartial, then they shouldn't be a public official. For example, a district clerk should issue all legally requested marriage licenses without delay and if a judge is going to officiate over wedding ceremonies (there is no obligation that they do), they should do so for all legal marriages. But the Marriage Comissioner in question is not a public official and thus, should be free to exercise their religious beliefs as they see fit.

 

[marplots]

It's nice to see them using evolutionary principles in Virginia. The officiant knew the marriage would bring together two recessive alleles for the believer gene. Any offspring were almost certainly going to be heretics.

 

[Ladewig]

So, is this where America is now headed?

No.
Why would you ask that question?

good luck getting married in Virginia if you are an atheist

I have seen you approach stories with an eye to critical thinking; however, this story is not worth a thread. Is there something else bothering you?

 

[uke2se]

Right. And that is hugely problematic, IMHO. It might make us feel good in a "Those stupid Christians got what they deserve!" sense, but I see it as further erosion of the religious freedom that was guaranteed in the Constitution.

Your rights end where mine begin. It's pretty simple, really.

I'm not aware that discrimination comes with a criminal penalty in the US. I've never heard of such a case. AFAIK, the anti-discrimination laws are civil, not criminal.

There are civil discrimination laws in Sweden as well. Unlawful discrimination is criminal though. Unlawful discrimination is discrimination by a business owner (or employee) against anyone based on skincolor, race, gender identity, nationality or religious persuasion.

In any case, I think a public official, as a representative of our secular form of government, should be impartial. If that person can't be impartial, then they shouldn't be a public official. For example, a district clerk should issue all legally requested marriage licenses without delay and if a judge is going to officiate over wedding ceremonies (there is no obligation that they do), they should do so for all legal marriages. But the Marriage Comissioner in question is not a public official and thus, should be free to exercise their religious beliefs as they see fit.

A business should be equally impartial as a public official. Otherwise there's but a small step to "no coloreds".

 

[uke2se]

I have seen you approach stories with an eye to critical thinking; however, this story is not worth a thread. Is there something else bothering you?

Why isn't it worth a thread? We have a thread about BENGHAZZZZIIIII in which one person is banging his head against the wall of reality. Why not have a thread about a clear cut case of discrimination?

 

[xjx388]

Your rights end where mine begin. It's pretty simple, really.

I agree but it goes both ways. A gay person's right to cake ends where the baker's right to practice their religion begins.

Again, why do gay people (in the current cases) get to force bakers and photographers to work for them against their will?

There are civil discrimination laws in Sweden as well. Unlawful discrimination is criminal though. Unlawful discrimination is discrimination by a business owner (or employee) against anyone based on skincolor, race, gender identity, nationality or religious persuasion.

That sounds extreme...like we need more reasons to throw people in jail.

A business should be equally impartial as a public official. Otherwise there's but a small step to "no coloreds".

Private citizens are not required to be impartial, why should the businesses they own be different?

 

[Brainster]

Outrage du jour syndrome.

ETA: I love that the site this comes from is called addicting info. Some people certainly seem addicted to outrage.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Again, why do gay people (in the current cases) get to force bakers and photographers to work for them against their will?

They don't have to. They are not forced. They are only compelled to if they want to stay in that business.

If you want to be a part of one of the largest economies in the free world you have to follow a few rules. Non-discrimination for publicly offered services is one of them. There are others. Do we need to go over all of them?