GOP Governor Does the Right Thing - Will it Catch On?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

LINK

Within hours of the House giving final approval to a bill that would allow magistrates and other public officials to refuse to perform marriages for religious reasons, Gov. Pat McCrory vetoed the measure.

Senate Bill 2 would allow magistrates and employees of county register of deeds offices who object to same-sex marriage to recuse themselves from performing or recording any marriages, gay or straight, for a period of at least six months.

"I recognize that, for many North Carolinians, including myself, opinions on same-sex marriage come from sincerely held religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, we are a nation and a state of laws. Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath," McCrory said in a statement. Officials said Friday that McCrory vetoed the measure late Thursday.

 

[HallofFame]

All men are created equal. Pursuit of Happiness
or
Religious Persecution and government telling people what they have to do even if it violates their beliefs.

That's a sticky situation

 

[theiacowtipper]

Why

All men are created equal. Pursuit of Happiness
or
Religious Persecution and government telling people what they have to do even if it violates their beliefs.

That's a sticky situation

Why is it a sticky situation? When you accept a position in government that serves the people, by definition you agree to serve all the people. Why should an elected or appointed official get to choose which people they serve? You have an argument, albeit weak, if you are talking about a private business.

Should a police officer be allowed to not respond to a robbery at a gay wedding?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

All men are created equal. Pursuit of Happiness
or
Religious Persecution and government telling people what they have to do even if it violates their beliefs.

That's a sticky situation

If it violates your beliefs to enforce the law or to honor your oath, don't work in that field and don't give your oath.

People can sometimes disagree about whether some laws are good laws - for religious or nonreligious reasons. And sometimes the performance of your job or the honoring of your oath comes with some flexibility or the ability to set priorities. Such as when a cop ignores a jaywalker, or chooses to go after the robber rather than the speeder. But this is not such a case.

Moreover, a law that gives religious people special rights (to refuse to do their job, to honor their oath, or to enforce or follow the law) is about as a clear violation of the separation clause as you can get. It's basically saying "if you are a conservative Christian, you don't have to follow the same laws that others in your same position have to follow."

 

[HallofFame]

I'm speaking for ministers mostly but I also don't enjoy telling someone they have to bake a cake. Neither of these people are elected to anything. But I do understand your arguments for people who have sought out a position in government to represent all the people not just ones of similar beliefs.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

NC is purple and McCrory will be up for reelection. This is a calculated move on his part. He already knows the votes are there to override thanks to extreme gerrymandering in the state.

 

[lucas80]

NC is purple and McCrory will be up for reelection. This is a calculated move on his part. He already knows the votes are there to override thanks to extreme gerrymandering in the state.

Bingo. NC went super far right do to some incredible gerrymandering. There is heat coming from inside and outside of NC over some of the voter suppression and social extremism. McCrory wants to be re-elected.

 

[ANYCHawk]

I'm speaking for ministers mostly but I also don't enjoy telling someone they have to bake a cake.

The law or the OP has nothing to do with that. It's about elected official who take an oath. It basically the equivalent of a judge refusing to marry a mixed race couple.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

if the definition of marriage is one man and one woman, {it is that- in TX, it's the law} and if somebody comes at a public official with request for something other than that, it is the duty of that official to refuse to do the ceremony. period, end of story.

 

[naturalmwa]

if the definition of marriage is one man and one woman, {it is that- in TX, it's the law} and if somebody comes at a public official with request for something other than that, it is the duty of that official to refuse to do the ceremony. period, end of story.

What should the official do when the law is changed?