good luck getting married in Virginia if you are an atheist

[thaiboxerken]

The guy should be fire and fined. To see conservative defend him does not surprise me.

 

[uke2se]

The guy should be fire and fined. To see conservative defend him does not surprise me.

As I understand it he's in business for himself (despite Ziggurat's attempt to define businesses as only what you can make a living from), so he can't be fired. They should sue him though. It's an open and shut case for any country with sane discrimination laws, which I thought the US had after the photographer case.

 

[xjx388]

The guy should be fire and fined. To see conservative defend him does not surprise me.

Fired by who? The government is not employing him.

If you are saying that his authorization to conduct marriages should be revoked, then on what grounds? Should Catholic priests be disallowed from officiating because they refuse to officiate gay weddings?

I think not. The government's responsibility is to ensure that any legal couple who wants to get married should be able to. And this couple was able to get married so what's the big deal?

Again, we can solve the whole thing by removing the legal requirement for an officiant. Just make the license the mechanism which creates the marriage.

 

[uke2se]

Fired by who? The government is not employing him.

If you are saying that his authorization to conduct marriages should be revoked, then on what grounds? Should Catholic priests be disallowed from officiating because they refuse to officiate gay weddings?

I think not. The government's responsibility is to ensure that any legal couple who wants to get married should be able to. And this couple was able to get married so what's the big deal?

Again, we can solve the whole thing by removing the legal requirement for an officiant. Just make the license the mechanism which creates the marriage.

The problem is, of course, that this goes way beyond this one case. There is no real difference between discrimination based on religion and discrimination based on race. Both are driven by fear and hate, and both are cancerous in a society.

I agree with you that there should be no requirement for a court appointed official, but if such a position holds some kind of bureaucratic importance, it should not come with any strings attached, and should be open to anyone that demands it according to law.

 

[thaiboxerken]

He should lose his state appointed status to marry people and he should be fined. He should also be forced to watch Brokeback Mountain.

 

[332nd]

Aside from the fact that the pricing is fixed by the state (which I mentioned above),

The price isn't fixed, it has a cap. The person can charge no more than $50.

the facts of this case point out another reason this isn't really a big issue. You don't need to get married in the town you live in. This couple didn't. They went to another county because they had trouble with their own county. It's not clear exactly what the problem was, but this source said,

For weeks, they tried contacting the Roanoke County Courthouse for information… to no avail. So they went to neighboring Franklin County instead.​

And this source said,

Tamar Courtney and Morgan Strong planned to get this married after six years together, and they’d hoped a friend would be able to officiate, reported the Friendly Atheist blog.

But that friend had trouble obtaining his license, so the couple turned to Franklin County – where a judge referred them to two court-appointed officiants.​

In fact, I find it strange that THIS wasn't the bigger issue. Government has a monopoly, and its failures to perform its duties are a bigger problem than the discrimination of an individual who can be easily bypassed. Perhaps incompetent government is so expected that people simply don't bother complaining. But if they had gotten the information they needed from Roanoke County, or their friend had been able to get his license to be a marriage commissioner (that should be easy to get, no?), then they never would have even heard of Bud Roth.

The facts remain that they did hear of Roth & he crossed a line.

Other cases are other cases. For example, I do not consider it acceptable for a hospital to be able to legally discriminate on the basis of race, because the service is essential and it's often not possible to substitute providers. I do find it acceptable for a poet-for-hire to legally discriminate on the basis of gender, because the service is completely non-essential. In the case under discussion here, the service is essential, but the provider is easily substituted, and it's really just not much of a problem. I see no need for state remedy in this case, especially when the actual complaint from the nominal victims isn't even that he refused them service, but that he was rude to them.

In the point I mentioned above, blacks were easily able to subsitute where they got tires. They just had to pay a higher cost or take a 20 mile trip.

 

[Ziggurat]

The facts remain that they did hear of Roth & he crossed a line.

He was rude to them. Boo hoo, let's sue. You're still complaining about the less significant problem in this whole chain of events.

In the point I mentioned above, blacks were easily able to subsitute where they got tires. They just had to pay a higher cost or take a 20 mile trip.

In other words, it's not actually an easy substitution in that case.

 

[sunmaster14]

The problem is, of course, that this goes way beyond this one case. There is no real difference between discrimination based on religion and discrimination based on race. Both are driven by fear and hate, and both are cancerous in a society.

Do you really believe that? I don't believe that. I think it's much easier to distinguish race from religion than it is to distinguish religion from political philosophy. Do you feel the same way about discrimination based on political philosophy?

 

[uke2se]

Do you really believe that? I don't believe that. I think it's much easier to distinguish race from religion than it is to distinguish religion from political philosophy. Do you feel the same way about discrimination based on political philosophy?

No. However, I feel the same way about discrimination based on nationality, sexual orientation, gender and skin color.

I'll leave you to figure out what all these have in common.

ETA: Come to think about it, I actually do feel the same way about discrimination based on political philosophy.

 

[332nd]

He was rude to them. Boo hoo, let's sue. You're still complaining about the less significant problem in this whole chain of events.

He was rude to them & he refused to provide said service...

& You're still tap dancing around the fact you can't seem to come up with what stops the group that's being discriminated against from having to pay more.

In other words, it's not actually an easy substitution in that case.

According to whom? I mean who gets to decide that if not the government?

 

[Loss Leader]

Just because they can charge that doesn't mean they do. If the few that discriminate charge $40, & the ones who don't charge $50, them those who are targets of discrimination pay more.


Also, what about other cases?

Many economically disadvantaged groups already pay more in a host of situations. Generally, women pay more than men for the same goods and services, blacks pay more than whites, the poor pay more than the rich.

This is a failure that should not be possible in a real free market. It's certainly not a problem limited to marriage ceremonies in Virginia.

 

[332nd]

Many economically disadvantaged groups already pay more in a host of situations. Generally, women pay more than men for the same goods and services, blacks pay more than whites, the poor pay more than the rich.

This is a failure that should not be possible in a real free market. It's certainly not a problem limited to marriage ceremonies in Virginia.

Oh I agree. Thus my problem with "the market will take care of it argument". Hell, I grew up in the 70s & there was still bad blood against certain store owners for gouging during WWII.

 

[Ziggurat]

He was rude to them & he refused to provide said service...

Being rude to them is not, and never should be, a crime. And they have admitted they don't really care that he refused service. And Roanoke County refused them service too, but somehow you're not complaining about that, even though they're the actual government.

& You're still tap dancing around the fact you can't seem to come up with what stops the group that's being discriminated against from having to pay more.

More than some hypothetical that some people might have access to? Sure, it's possible. But given the cap is fairly low, most marriage commissioners probably already charge that, and it's unlikely to be a significant cost of marriage in most cases anyways, it just seems like such an incredibly minor problem. Furthermore, there are far better remedies available, remedies which this couple would have preferred, namely making it easier for people to become marriage commissioners. Then you can have your friends do it for free. That's what they wanted to do.

You're really stretching here. Cost was not any part of their complaint.

 

[sackett]

...He should also be forced to watch Brokeback Mountain.

Five will get you ten that he owns a copy.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'll say it again. Even if there are anti-discrimination laws, there is nothing preventing business to be anti-discriminatory because it's good business.

Anti-discrimination laws do not inhibit non-discrimination due to market forces.

 

[Loss Leader]

Anti-discrimination laws do not inhibit non-discrimination due to market forces.

If market forces fully took care of the problem, we wouldn't need laws. Clearly, people are able to act against their own economic interests when it suits some emotional need. (Or their emotions cause them to miscalculate their interests.)

 

[pgwenthold]

If market forces fully took care of the problem, we wouldn't need laws.

But that's not the issue. Yes, great, if market forces took care of the problem, we wouldn't NEED laws. However, if market forces took care of the problem, the law wouldn't inhibit that, either.

So the laws shouldn't be a problem for anyone who thinks that the market can deal with it. Oh sure, they could be outdated, but they aren't causing a problem or anything. So why the big beef about how they aren't necessary. It's a complete red herring. Maybe they aren't necessary, but then again, since they aren't bothering the market solution, what's wrong having them there to prevent those from acting against the places where the market isn't working?

The only justification is that it is to allow people to discriminate.

 

[Loss Leader]

The only justification is that it is to allow people to discriminate.

Well, we appear to be in full agreement.

People have some cognitive biases that usually have resulted in economically sound solutions but can mislead them today.

Fear and mistrust of strangers was an important evolutionary trait. It caused people to socialize more within their own clans, to take fewer risks, and to prefer wealth for their own people even at the expense of other tribes. That seems to translate to racism today and is now an economically wasteful mindset. Law, then, operates where biology fails us.

 

[Ziggurat]

But that's not the issue. Yes, great, if market forces took care of the problem, we wouldn't NEED laws. However, if market forces took care of the problem, the law wouldn't inhibit that, either.

That is a nonsensical argument. The problem with unnecessary anti-discrimination laws is not that they permit discrimination (a straw man), the problem is that they can cause other problems. They can be used as tools for harassment with false accusations, they can add unnecessary administrative costs in efforts to ensure compliance, they can divert legal resources from more useful endeavors, and they contribute to making our legal code ever-more complex and therefore opaque. Laws are never cost-free. Even if the law prevents some undesirable discrimination, that doesn't ensure that it's worthwhile.

In this specific case, what's the scope of the problem here? In all of Virginia, I've now heard of a single complaint of an atheist having trouble getting married because of his atheism. And the real nature of the complaint is that the couple felt they were treated rudely (which could have happened even if Mr. Roth were compelled by law to perform the ceremony). They were not prevented from getting married, and their actual inconvenience in having to call someone else was much less than the troubles they had due to a failure of government. And this needs a law to fix? No, it doesn't. It really, really doesn't.

 

[Border Reiver]

That is a nonsensical argument. The problem with unnecessary anti-discrimination laws is not that they permit discrimination (a straw man), the problem is that they can cause other problems. They can be used as tools for harassment with false accusations, they can add unnecessary administrative costs in efforts to ensure compliance, they can divert legal resources from more useful endeavors, and they contribute to making our legal code ever-more complex and therefore opaque. Laws are never cost-free. Even if the law prevents some undesirable discrimination, that doesn't ensure that it's worthwhile.



In this specific case, what's the scope of the problem here? In all of Virginia, I've now heard of a single complaint of an atheist having trouble getting married because of his atheism. And the real nature of the complaint is that the couple felt they were treated rudely (which could have happened even if Mr. Roth were compelled by law to perform the ceremony). They were not prevented from getting married, and their actual inconvenience in having to call someone else was much less than the troubles they had due to a failure of government. And this needs a law to fix? No, it doesn't. It really, really doesn't.

There already is a law in place - the 1st Amendment, which is there to ensure that the State law concerning the issuance of a marriage license by county officials is done without forcing any religious observances on the part of the applicants