Biggest Evangelical Nightmare: Harry Potter Marries Dumbledore in CA on June 17!

Round 2 in California marriage - we've received complaints about the following. Thoughts or comments, both on the law and ACLU policy?


6:38 a.m. May 21, 2008
SAN DIEGO - Workers in the San Diego County clerk's office who object to same-sex marriages may be excused from officiating at gay weddings. County Clerk Gregory Smith says he is considering allowing his employees to opt out of the ceremonies for religious or moral reasons.

The California Supreme Court last week overturned the state's ban on
same-sex marriages, meaning county clerks will be required to perform marriages for gay couples starting next month.

Smith says no employees have asked so far to be excused from officiating at the ceremonies, but he wants to respect those with strong beliefs. Smith says he doesn't think it's correct "to force employees to do it, and I don't think you would want someone who is hostile to your beliefs
performing your ceremony."

After thinking a while about this, and conferring with friends and colleagues, I have a real problem with government employees refusing to issue marriage licenses based on "religious reasons". As a Christian myself, and a huge proponent of both religious freedom and marriage equality, I call "bogus!" on this claim.

Obviously, I am not an attorney, but I am of the mind that public officials should not be exempt from performing same-sex marriage because they claim that doing so is against their religion. Doesn't it undercut the point that marriage, as recognized by the state, is different than religious marriage? Why not tell those employees that when they are acting as representatives of their church they get to choose who to marry, but when acting as representatives of the state they do not? What about clerks in other states who belong to churches that DO recognize same-sex marriage, should they be allowed to marry gay people because not doing so is against their religion?

Where is the line drawn?

What if somebody belonged to a church that didn't believe government had the right to exist? Say this person applied for and was hired in a government job, but refused to do any of the work because doing so would be in violation of their religious belief. That would prove problematic. I would be upset if that person cried "religious discrimination" if she was fired. If a person does not like their job, or what their government is doing, then get another job or change the government. You don't get to have it both ways. When a friend of mine worked for the Sheriff, he processed files for people going to jail for crimes that he felt should not warrant jail time- but he did it anyway and felt disheartened about it. Now he has a better job, and feels a whole lot better about himself. But I digress.

I think there is a difference between a religious belief that does not allow a person to work on a specific day and a religious belief that conflicts with enacting policy at one's job. Not working on a specific holiday has probably no impact on the job description or the amount or type of work being done. No one has to have a job that conflicts with one's religious beliefs. If someone is a Mormon, that person should definitely have the opportunity to not work on July 24, Pioneer Day; but, as a Mormon, that person should also probably not become a bartender [or barista, for that matter]. The government has particular secular tasks to do, and if an aspect of those tasks is not something that one can "morally" do, then one should not take that job.

Also, I think that taking the position that one cannot serve same-sex couples for "moral" reasons would support the argument that same-sex marriage actually impacts other people at all, and that sets a dangerous precedent.

So, here is an article that a colleague sent to me, I think in an attempt to check-mate me:

Worker says she lost job over Harry Potter dispute
The Associated Press

ST. LOUIS | The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri has filed a lawsuit against the city of Poplar Bluff after a library worker claims she was disciplined for failing to work at an event to promote a Harry Potter book.
Anthony Rothert with the ACLU in St. Louis says the woman, Deborah Smith, is a Southern Baptist who believes the Harry Potter series popularizes witchcraft and the practice of the occult.
He says she was suspended without pay for 10 days when she refused to work at a library event on July 21, 2007, for the release of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.” He says Smith, who has a pacemaker, was given arduous tasks, like emptying out a book drop-off box, upon her return, and quit on her doctor’s recommendation.
He says the lawsuit filed in federal court in Cape Girardeau Tuesday alleges violations of her civil and First Amendment rights and seeks unspecified damages. There was no immediate response from Poplar Bluff’s attorney.

I think I'm going to disagree with the ACLU on this one, but I don't know all of the details. Is working at events like this Harry Potter one part of the requirements for this job? If it is, we might have a situation where perhaps this person shouldn't be in this kind of work. Also, are there books other than Harry Potter that she objects to on religious grounds, like The Koran? Where does she draw the line? Does she process transactions for these objectionable materials? I don't really like the idea that a person can decide that their rights aren't infringed if they are paid by a company that profits on material that they object to religiously or if they personally sell or stock an item that is against their religion, but the claim their rights are infringed when they work at an event promoting this item. This seems inconsistent to me. Does it seem inconsistent to you? The same book store and the same clerk will sell copies of William F. Buckley books right along side Noam Chomsky books. I don't think selling a book or working at an event promoting a particular book is an indication that either you as an individual or the store selling the book supports the content of the book, and suing on behalf of someone who says that it does could--again-- set a very dangerous precedent.

I do also think an argument needs to be made, although delicately, that there is a difference between long standing religious traditions that deserve reasonable accommodations, and new reactionary religious ideas, like being anti same-sex marriage and anti-Harry Potter*. Perhaps the best way to show the difference between the two would be to focus on the issue of consistency. The fact that an individual or group of people consistently won't eat foods unless they are prepared a certain way because of their religious beliefs, not just sometimes, probably has a better chance of standing up to the consistency test than an individual or group who won't participate at a Harry Potter event because it promotes witch craft, but they will work in a store that sells Harry Potter goods, and probably also sells or stocks Harry Potter or other merchandise that would fit the vague definition of "promoting witch craft".

Again, I think this person needs to prove that their rights to practice their religion however they choose would in some way be violated if she worked at the Harry Potter event. But I don't see how they would be. Would a Jewish man be exempt from doing any work at a Christian bookstore because it would violate his religious beliefs? Would a Christian bookstore be able to ask questions about a person’s faith in the hiring process, and not hire someone because of their religious beliefs? I think the answer to both questions is: nope! Working at a bookstore or processing marriage licenses in no way expresses an individual’s belief that they agree with the material being sold or the religious merits of the couples union.

*I would just like to clarify that, despite being a pretty serious bibliophile, I have not read a Harry Potter book and sort of-kind of don't intend to. Ironically enough, I hate reading about magic. I can't get into fantasy. It has zero to do with my love of Jesus (Who cast spells of His own, so maybe He'd be hella down with Harry Potter and Friends).