Skip to main content

View Diary: MD County Clerk reassigns deputies so they won't have to marry gay couples (258 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And I think I've answered, and puzzled as to why (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    madhaus

    you think a case in which the courts supported the dismissal of a person that the employer had already voluntarily accommodated, applies to this instance.

    The Walden case courts were not defending the employee's right to accommodation, something already done without court intervention, as has just been done in this clerk's office. The courts slapped down an employee that contested dismissal when the accommodation was not to her satisfaction. A very odd choice of cases!

    If anything, I might conclude that particular case would support the clerk's dismissal of these employees, individuals that had those duties as part of their routine duties before, if the citizens using that office took that to be offensive. If "Conservatives Counseling Gay or Lesbian Clients" is accurate in this second loss of Ms. Walden in court:

    The circuit court affirmed the district court. It considered Ms. Walden's free exercise rights and concluded that Ms. Walden was not laid off because of her religious beliefs, but because of concern that she would convey her reasons in unacceptable ways to clients who were already in a vulnerable state.
    I'd think Walden might llkely be cited in supporting the clerk's potential dismissal of those employees because some of the citizen clients felt prejudice and that this special religious accommodation (again, Ward v. Polite for exception to the previous practice) was unacceptable support for that prejudice in a public office.

    The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

    by pelagicray on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:41:10 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You misread Walden. (0+ / 0-)

      Walden said:

      1.  A religious objection to counseling same-sex couples was a "sincerely held" "religious belief" of the kind that merits accommodation under the Civil Rights laws.

      2.  Allowing the employee to remain a counselor, but to refer same-sex couples to others, was a reasonable accommodation of that religious view.  Those are akin to what is happening in this Maryland situation. In fact, this is more accommodation than in MD.  In Walden, the employee kept her counseling job, and the same-sex couples who came to her had the extra step of being referred to another counselor.  The Court said that was a reasonable accommodation of her religious beliefs.  In MD, same sex couples have no such extra step.  They will never be dealing with anyone who has a religious objection to dealing with them at all.  

      3.  A FURTHER accommodation of allowing the employee, while she was making the referral, to lecture others about her religious beliefs was NOT necessary and NOT a reasonable accommodation.  That's nothing like what is happening in Maryland.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site