good luck getting married in Virginia if you are an atheist

[marplots]

So then the problem is really that the court clerk who referred the couple to him didn't tell them that he didn't do atheist marriages.

Yep. Unless the case is that doing atheist marriages is part of the job description - more likely worded as something like, "all legal marriages." As you said, a legislative fix.

 

[sunmaster14]

Deleted, because what's the point? When the best conservatives can do is argue against the calling out of obvious cases of discrimination like this, they have already lost.

You can have the last word, Ziggurat.

Not a particularly gracious way of conceding an argument, but the message is clear at least.

 

[gabeygoat]

It's amazing to what extent people will go to intrude the state into the lives of individuals.

TOTALLY, See for reference, the Civil Rights Act

 

[332nd]

What stops those who are being discriminated against from having to pay more for goods & services?

 

[sunmaster14]

TOTALLY, See for reference, the Civil Rights Act

That strikes me as a childish comment. From what I've seen of Ziggurat in this thread, I suspect he supports the vast majority of the provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as do I. Note that the Civil Rights Act would not proscribe the discrimination at issue in this thread, unless the marriage commissioner was considered an employee of the state (and perhaps not even then).

 

[sunmaster14]

What stops those who are being discriminated against from having to pay more for goods & services?

The presence of other sellers in the market who care more about making a buck than exercising their irrelevant prejudice.

 

[pgwenthold]

It's amazing to what extent people will go to intrude the state into the lives of individuals.

I agree. See, this guy, as an agent of the state, is refusing to perform a service that the state provides.

Therefore, HE is the one "intruding into the lives of the individuals" who want to get married, by refusing to perform that state-provided service for them.

If he wants to act on behalf of the state, then he has to act on behalf of the state and can't let his personal views get in the way of that.

 

[332nd]

The presence of other sellers in the market who care more about making a buck than exercising their irrelevant prejudice.

The other sellers are the ones I'm talking about. What stops them from raising prices since since options have been reduced for a group?

Granted this would not be as much of a problem in cities & fair sized towns, (well there might be an increase in cost to actually reach the stores, but ignore that for now) but say a small town like where I grew up. There were two places that delt with tires. One refuses to deal with gays... what stops the other from rasing prices for known homosexuals?

 

[Ziggurat]

What stops those who are being discriminated against from having to pay more for goods & services?

In this case, Virginia law. Marriage commissioners can charge a maximum of $50 for performing a ceremony.

 

[332nd]

In this case, Virginia law. Marriage commissioners can charge a maximum of $50 for performing a ceremony.

Yeah I saw that. What about other cases?

 

[sunmaster14]

The other sellers are the ones I'm talking about. What stops them from raising prices since since options have been reduced for a group?

Granted this would not be as much of a problem in cities & fair sized towns, (well there might be an increase in cost to actually reach the stores, but ignore that for now) but say a small town like where I grew up. There were two places that delt with tires. One refuses to deal with gays... what stops the other from rasing prices for known homosexuals?

Well, I suppose in that case the gay people are out of luck. Of course, there is no constitutional right to discriminate against people while engaging in commerce, so it is possible to have legal remedies for such situations. I think the legal remedies tend to be both unnecessary and ineffective, however, so I'm usually not in favor of them. But it is certainly possible to dream up hypotheticals (as you have - in fact, it works even better if there is just one tire dealer in town) where legal remedies make sense. Similar legal remedies have been enacted to break up monopolies for example.

Your hypothetical actually raises a related issue, which is whether or when it is acceptable for businesses to price goods and services differently for different people. It certainly happens all the time, of course. I'm still trying to figure out why a haircut for a woman costs 2-3x as much as a haircut for a man.

 

[Border Reiver]

In this case, Virginia law. Marriage commissioners can charge a maximum of $50 for performing a ceremony.

Given the commissoner's insistence on the ceremony being held at his church, I'm going to go out on a limb here that the couple would ahve been presented with an invoice with a few extras thrown in: Use of the chapel, fees for the organist, clean up, etc. While the law says that the Officiant can charge up to a max of $50 TO PERFORM THE CEREMONY, it makes no mention of not charging for any extras, and there is a long standing tradition of underpaid public functionarys padding their income through such means.

 

[332nd]

In this case, Virginia law. Marriage commissioners can charge a maximum of $50 for performing a ceremony.

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?

 

[xjx388]

I agree. See, this guy, as an agent of the state, is refusing to perform a service that the state provides.

Therefore, HE is the one "intruding into the lives of the individuals" who want to get married, by refusing to perform that state-provided service for them.

If he wants to act on behalf of the state, then he has to act on behalf of the state and can't let his personal views get in the way of that.

He isn't an agent of the State. He is an independent person authorized to celebrate the rites of marriage. Here is the relevant statute in VA:

Upon petition filed with the clerk and payment of applicable clerk's fees, any circuit court judge may issue an order authorizing one or more persons, resident in the circuit in which the judge sits, to celebrate the rites of marriage in the Commonwealth. Any person so authorized shall, before acting, enter into bond in the penalty of $500, with or without surety, as the court may direct. Any order made under this section may be rescinded at any time.

That's it. No requirement to perform any and all marriages. Any individual can petition the court for authorization.

 

[332nd]

Well, I suppose in that case the gay people are out of luck. Of course, there is no constitutional right to discriminate against people while engaging in commerce, so it is possible to have legal remedies for such situations. I think the legal remedies tend to be both unnecessary and ineffective, however, so I'm usually not in favor of them. But it is certainly possible to dream up hypotheticals (as you have - in fact, it works even better if there is just one tire dealer in town) where legal remedies make sense. Similar legal remedies have been enacted to break up monopolies for example.

Well I based this hypothetical on history. There was 2 of pretty much everything due to segregation. When Mr. Neal (owner of the shop for blacks) died, his kids sold the shop to a guy who raised prices & took great delight in telling people where the next nearest shop was that would serve them. (20 miles away.)

Your hypothetical actually raises a related issue, which is whether or when it is acceptable for businesses to price goods and services differently for different people. It certainly happens all the time, of course. I'm still trying to figure out why a haircut for a woman costs 2-3x as much as a haircut for a man.

Exactly, that's when it gets tricky.

 

[Ziggurat]

The other sellers are the ones I'm talking about. What stops them from raising prices since since options have been reduced for a group?

Granted this would not be as much of a problem in cities & fair sized towns, (well there might be an increase in cost to actually reach the stores, but ignore that for now) but say a small town like where I grew up. There were two places that delt with tires. One refuses to deal with gays... what stops the other from rasing prices for known homosexuals?

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

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah I saw that. What about other cases?

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.

 

[uke2se]

Not a particularly gracious way of conceding an argument, but the message is clear at least.

Obviously it wasn't clear, as I wasn't conceding the argument, but rather giving up trying to have a rational discussion with Ziggurat.

 

[Ziggurat]

Obviously it wasn't clear, as I wasn't conceding the argument, but rather giving up trying to have a rational discussion with Ziggurat.

You were the one getting your facts wrong, not me. Then you denied being wrong, but could offer no actual evidence that you were not wrong. And you pulled your Cartman impersonation right after I proved that you had your facts wrong, editing your post to remove your bizarre denial of being wrong.

But I agree with you on one point: you're not able to have a rational discussion with me.

 

[xjx388]

And honestly, what is the point of having a legally sanctioned officiant anyway? Why is that a legal requirement? Just get a license and register the marriage -you can have the ceremony any which way you want.

I guess the point is that the legally sanctioned officiant can ensure the marriage is legal, but so can the district clerk when you get a license or register the marriage.

Just make the license the official document that creates a marriage; ceremonies are up to each individual.