good luck getting married in Virginia if you are an atheist

[Ziggurat]

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

Bud Roth is not a county official. He is not a government official of any kind. I thought that was already well-publicized in this thread. Furthermore, he does not issue marriage licenses, he performs the marriage ceremony. And the county never forced anyone to use his services either.

 

[332nd]

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.

Who's arguing that the goverment should have the right to refuse them because they're atheists?

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 still tap dancing.

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

Did I say it was? No? Ok. I asked the question "what stops the targets of discrimination from having to pay more" & you went full Kelly.

Now then, who decides what constitutes an "easy substitution"?

 

[yodaluver28]

So, for example, a doctor should be forced to perform an abortion or prescribe birth control even if they are Catholic?

If said doctor is an OB/GYN, absolutely. If they cannot properly and completely fulfill their duties as a reproductive health care provider for women based on their own personal feelings and biases, they have no right to be one. Ditto pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions even though filling scripts as written by the customer's health care provider is literally the entire scope of their profession. Act like a professional and do your job properly or go into a field that will accommodate your feelings without harming others. And yes, a physician or pharmacist denying women birth control based on their own personal beliefs is inflicting harm on a patient for personal emotional gain. It's unprofessional, inappropriate, and should never be allowed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Who's arguing that the goverment should have the right to refuse them because they're atheists?

What on earth are you even talking about? Nobody argued that the government should, and furthermore nobody argued that anyone else argued that they should. But the Roanoke County government DID refuse them service. We have no idea why they did so, but that's not actually much consolation.

You're still tap dancing.

That's not an argument. If you expect a substantive reply, present an argument.

Did I say it was? No? Ok.

You certainly think it's part of the problem, or you wouldn't have kept talking about it. Even though there's no evidence that it is a problem.

Now then, who decides what constitutes an "easy substitution"?

You can. I can. Anyone can. And then, after you've decided, you can argue for the merits of your decision. And the democratic process can play out from there.

 

[332nd]

What on earth are you even talking about? Nobody argued that the government should, and furthermore nobody argued that anyone else argued that they should. But the Roanoke County government DID refuse them service. We have no idea why they did so, but that's not actually much consolation.

If no one is arguing thst they should, why should I complian about it? Because you think its worse?

That's not an argument. If you expect a substantive reply, present an argument.

Just stating a fact.

You certainly think it's part of the problem, or you wouldn't have kept talking about it. Even though there's no evidence that it is a problem.

I think it could be a problem, because I know its been a problem in the past, & I asked what could stop it & you started dancing.

You can. I can. Anyone can. And then, after you've decided, you can argue for the merits of your decision. And the democratic process can play out from there.

So... anti-discriminaton laws?

 

[Ziggurat]

If no one is arguing thst they should, why should I complian about it? Because you think its worse?

Yes, I think it's worse when government fails to provide services it is legally obligated to provide, regardless of the reasons for that failure, than if a single private individual fails to provide services that he doesn't have any legal obligation to provide, even if I find the reason objectionable.

Just stating a fact.

You're stating an opinion. Your confusion on that point does not speak well of you.

I think it could be a problem, because I know its been a problem in the past

It's been a problem in the past that atheists couldn't find someone to perform a wedding ceremony for them? When, pray tell?

The US is becoming less and less religious over time. Atheist really don't need to worry, social trends are in their favor.

So... anti-discriminaton laws?

You are free to argue for their merits. I never suggested otherwise. You, however, seem to be of the opinion that I am not entitled to argue against them.

 

[332nd]

Yes, I think it's worse when government fails to provide services it is legally obligated to provide, regardless of the reasons for that failure, than if a single private individual fails to provide services that he doesn't have any legal obligation to provide, even if I find the reason objectionable.

Sorry, I find bureaucracy less offensive than discrimination.

You're stating an opinion. Your confusion on that point does not speak well of you.

No. I'm stating a fact. For example...

It's been a problem in the past that atheists couldn't find someone to perform a wedding ceremony for them? When, pray tell?

I've made it quite clear I'm talking about beyond this case & you have even acknowledged that, yet you kept dancing around the question.

The US is becoming less and less religious over time. Atheist really don't need to worry, social trends are in their favor.

social trends didn't favor interracial marriage until '91/'92. I'm an Interracial person born in '72. Do you need me to go into detail why I think your argument is moronic?

You are free to argue for their merits. I never suggested otherwise. You, however, seem to be of the opinion that I am not entitled to argue against them

Really? What have I said that makes it seem so?

 

[theprestige]

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.

Cites, please, lots and lots of cites!

I mean, I'm about to insist that my wife not buy the groceries or send out for dry cleaning, since generally she'll pay more for goods and services, right?

But before I make this life change, can I please have some cites to support it?

 

[Border Reiver]

Bud Roth is not a county official. He is not a government official of any kind. I thought that was already well-publicized in this thread. Furthermore, he does not issue marriage licenses, he performs the marriage ceremony. And the county never forced anyone to use his services either.

Actually he is an official, authorized by the circuit court, to carry out a function of Virginia law.

Pursuant to The Virginia statute, having the license is not sufficient to be married, there needs to be a ceremony performed by an officiant.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually he is an official, authorized by the circuit court, to carry out a function of Virginia law.

That does not make him a county official any more than getting a hunting license makes you a county official.

Pursuant to The Virginia statute, having the license is not sufficient to be married, there needs to be a ceremony performed by an officiant.

And they were easily able to do that without Mr. Roth's help.

 

[pgwenthold]

We need to get back to some basics.

This is not merely a minister is who refusing to marry a couple who are not members of the church.

Read the OP. The couple went to the courthouse to get married. HE insisted they go to his church. Then HE refused to marry them because they didn't believe.

This was not a case of them showing up at his church.

 

[marplots]

If they had only accepted Jesus into their hearts, none of this would have happened.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry, I find bureaucracy less offensive than discrimination.

Bureaucratic failures are often a cover for discrimination, and even when they are not, they can easily be just as or even more harmful. You should not find it acceptable, because it's not.

No. I'm stating a fact.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I've made it quite clear I'm talking about beyond this case & you have even acknowledged that, yet you kept dancing around the question.

What the hell are you even talking about? The question I posed, which you ignored with this response instead, was precisely about the issue of what happens beyond this case. You have yourself just danced around the question. You keep talking about "facts", yet you offer none.

social trends didn't favor interracial marriage until '91/'92. I'm an Interracial person born in '72. Do you need me to go into detail why I think your argument is moronic?

We aren't talking about interracial marriage. We're talking about atheist marriage. And you seem to be confused about social trends (the direction social opinion is moving) and social opinion itself. The trend has been favoring interracial marriage since at least the early 60's. The trend favors atheism right now. The problems they face in trying to get married aren't going to get worse, they're going to get better, and right now those problems are already trivial. We don't need government intervention to solve the problem. There's hardly any problem at all. Atheists trying to get married face much bigger hurdles from bureaucratic failures (which you are indifferent to) than from religious discrimination.

 

[Ziggurat]

We need to get back to some basics.

This is not merely a minister is who refusing to marry a couple who are not members of the church.

Read the OP. The couple went to the courthouse to get married. HE insisted they go to his church. Then HE refused to marry them because they didn't believe.

This was not a case of them showing up at his church.

You skipped a few steps. This guy wasn't at the courthouse. They may not have shown up at his church, but they still went to him (again, not at the courthouse). Nor was he the only option the court gave to the couple.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

We need to get back to some basics.

This is not merely a minister is who refusing to marry a couple who are not members of the church.

Read the OP. The couple went to the courthouse to get married. HE insisted they go to his church. Then HE refused to marry them because they didn't believe.

This was not a case of them showing up at his church.

thank you! a nice reminder.

 

[Loss Leader]

Cites, please, lots and lots of cites!

I mean, I'm about to insist that my wife not buy the groceries or send out for dry cleaning, since generally she'll pay more for goods and services, right?

But before I make this life change, can I please have some cites to support it?

Women often pay more than men

Blacks pay more than whites for real estate in several different parts of the country. They pay more for car loans, bail, and financing.

The poor pay more than the rich in many areas of life.

 

[332nd]

Bureaucratic failures are often a cover for discrimination, and even when they are not, they can easily be just as or even more harmful. You should not find it acceptable, because it's not.

I didn't say it was acceptable.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Then stop dancing?

What the hell are you even talking about? The question I posed, which you ignored with this response instead, was precisely about the issue of what happens beyond this case. You have yourself just danced around the question. You keep talking about "facts", yet you offer none.

Lol! Its on this very page! Post 86 & you responded in 87. I didn't say that there was a time when atheist couldn't find people to marry them. I said that it wasn't unusual for targets of discrimination to have to pay more in the past. I then gave an example that I knew of.

We aren't talking about interracial marriage. We're talking about atheist marriage.

We're talking about discrimination so I see nothing wrong with using examples from other forms/times of discrimination.

And you seem to be confused about social trends (the direction social opinion is moving) and social opinion itself. The trend has been favoring interracial marriage since at least the early 60's.

Trends don't mean much until they get government backing in the form of laws. For example. ..

The trend favors atheism right now. The problems they face in trying to get married aren't going to get worse, they're going to get better, and right now those problems are already trivial. We don't need government intervention to solve the problem. There's hardly any problem at all. Atheists trying to get married face much bigger hurdles from bureaucratic failures (which you are indifferent to) than from religious discrimination.

... Gay marriage. The trend is in favor of gay marriage yet many states refuse to allow it because enough people in those states want it banned. Luckily for my gay friends (& society), the courts are striking down those bans.

 

[Ziggurat]

Lol! Its on this very page! Post 86 & you responded in 87.

Check posts 106 and 107. I posed a question to you specifically about "beyond this case", and you respond not by answering the question, but by again insisting that you're talking about "beyond this case".

I didn't say that there was a time when atheist couldn't find people to marry them. I said that it wasn't unusual for targets of discrimination to have to pay more in the past. I then gave an example that I knew of.

In other words, your fears of other problems are being projected onto this problem, on the basis of... your fears. Not facts, just fears. Atheists have no problem getting married. They have no problem paying what everyone else pays. One atheist couple is complaining about being treated rudely. That's it, that's the full and total extent of the problem, but we need government to step in NOW, damn it!

We're talking about discrimination so I see nothing wrong with using examples from other forms/times of discrimination.

If they were relevant. But... they aren't really.

Trends don't mean much until they get government backing in the form of laws. For example. ..


... Gay marriage. The trend is in favor of gay marriage yet many states refuse to allow it because enough people in those states want it banned. Luckily for my gay friends (& society), the courts are striking down those bans.

Your example does not illustrate what you think it illustrates. Quite the reverse. First, social trends proceed changes in the law. Second, the example you refer to deals with what government prohibits or allows. You don't want government to prohibit gay marriage. It really doesn't matter if some individual marriage commissioners won't perform gay marriages (and countless proponents have assured people that nobody would be forced to perform such ceremonies), what matters is if the state will recognize such marriages, and right now, not all of them do. So once again, this is really a demonstration that government discrimination is, and always has been, a far bigger issue than private discrimination.

And government already doesn't prohibit atheist marriage (I'm not aware that they ever did, but it certainly wasn't within my lifetime). The law in every state already allows atheists to get married. There simply is no equivalent obstacle for atheists as there is for gays.

 

[332nd]

Check posts 106 and 107. I posed a question to you specifically about "beyond this case", and you respond not by answering the question, but by again insisting tha you're talking about "beyond this case".

Yes. Other forms of discrimination beyond this case.

In other words, your fears of other problems are being projected onto this problem, on the basis of... your fears. Not facts, just fears. Atheists have no problem getting married. They have no problem paying what everyone else pays. One atheist couple is complaining about being treated rudely. That's it, that's the full and total extent of the problem, but we need government to step in NOW, damn it!

No.

If they were relevant. But... they aren't really.

Using cases of discrimination past to compare, contrast, & otherwise gague current cases is indeed relevant.

Your example does not illustrate what you think it illustrates. Snip...

Gonna stop you right there. What do I think it illustrates? Please be specific.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. Other forms of discrimination beyond this case.

In other words, you're complaining about discrimination in general, this case really isn't relevant to your fears. You might as well start a new thread.