Public officials in Tennessee can now refuse to grant a marriage license to anyone at their own discretion, for any reason.
Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed into law House Bill 878 on Wednesday, which took effect immediately. The bill — just a few sentences in length — only states that “a person shall not be required to solemnize a marriage.” Only state notary publics, government officials, and religious figures can “solemnize” a marriage in Tennessee, according to state code.
None of the sponsors behind the bill have been made public statements on its introduction or passage, nor have they given comment to media organizations. The only known remarks regarding the law from state Rep. Monty Fritts (take a guess), who sponsored it in the House, are from February of last year, when he spoke to the state Subcommittee on Children and Family Affairs.
Why are the conservatives so homophobic? Are they having sex with your husbands or something?
I had a gay man hit me in a gay bar. I said sorry I’m straight and he called me a tease. I was sorta flattered. This must be what females feel all the time.
we wound up in a gay bar on a bucks night pub crawl once and it was awesome. also one of the only times in my life I was hit on and yeah, it’s flattering!
Did you end up having sex with him? No? Hm… still not sure why they are still so homophobic.
Isn’t this a federal law though? Is it normal practice to allow states to supercede federal law if they arbitrarily want to?
It’s skirting the federal law by allowing all officials to refuse anyone for any reason. If they just said “no gay marriage in this state” or didn’t recognize the union of married gay couples that would be illegal.
It’s fucked up, and the intention is clear, but I’m sure the remaining officiants that will perform ceremonies for same sex couples will make themselves known and they will be busy.
If the person doesn’t refuse to solemnize any other people other than gays it will be pretty damn easy to establish what they are doing. Also “religious” figure is pretty up in the air there is an online course that allows anyone to become an officiant. I guess there is money to be made in being a no frills gay officiant of a secular nature.
I’m sure the remaining officiants that will perform ceremonies for same sex couples will make themselves known and they will be busy.
Unfortunately they will also likely be targeted by extremists.
Also, it doesn’t skirt federal law, per the article:
the Constitution prohibits public officials from discriminating against members of the public based on their personal beliefs
This might not cover all officiants, eg priests, but it covers state notary publics and government officials, which is really all this law is targeting anyway (I think religious people could already refuse).
Oh but they’ll still try, and it’ll end up dragging through court just like the last bitch that tried to object on religious grounds (y’know, the one that was divorced multiple times)
I think they can still be sued if it’s shown that they refuse only gay people. If they only married white people for instance they would absolutely be reamed in court.
What this does do is shift when the lawsuit can happen. Now we have to wait for evidence they they’re discriminating since the law itself is not discriminatory.
Congress should just pass a law to allow online marriage services so someone in a progressive state can marry anyone who needs to get married in a shithole state.
I can re-register my car, re-issue my license, change or verify my voter info online, even all the gods hope file my taxes online cheaply(cough free) these days. I dont see why two consenting adults who both file the info shouldn’t be able to… but then minds would explode. I mean we recently found out that alabama thinks that eggs are actual humans, which opens so many food based questions I’ll stop going.
GOP continue to be pieces of trash. I really wish the party would just die off, but Trumpism gave them a bolder fascist to believe in.
Now tell me, what do you think about banks refusing service to LibsofTikTok ?
If a gay person ran a business whose clientele had a disproportionally high rate of people who actively call in bomb threats to elementary schools, you might have made a really great point right here.
All she does is repost stuff that people posted themselves and you hold her responsible for people calling bomb threats. Why don’t you hold the people posting that shit responsible themselves?
It’s bad when private entities discriminate. It’s a million times worse when the government does.
Edit: I did forget to mention though, being a bitch isn’t a protected class…sexual orientation is.
Wait… aren’t you people the same one’s telling everyone they can’t tell you what to do with your body, but here you want to demand someone give up their choice? If one person refuses, move on to the next. A lot of you don’t understand the word freedom, or hypocrite.
For a business to discriminate in many parts of the US, there may be only 1 bakery, or bank, or car rental place, etc. Some places are small, you can’t just “go to someone else” when you only have One option. Almost all business are considered “places of public accommodation”.
For government to discriminate we have the same issue. Many offices have very few employees in MOST of the US. Only large metropolitan cities have, almost adequate, staff. There are not 100 court clerks in Podunk Alabama, or Nowhere Nevada. These places probably have 1 clerk doing multiple jobs.
If you own a business, or work in a government job, you serve the public. That means every nice person, and every freak you hate. This ain’t no hamburger at Burger King, you don’t get to “have it your way”.
Nobody should have the right to infringe upon others’ rights. Look up the paradox of tolerance.
it’s not infringing though. they aren’t saying you can’t, they are saying they won’t.
So, if an Amish person decided to work at the DMV, they should be able to refuse driver’s licenses to everyone? It’s against their beliefs, after all. (I don’t know if it technically is, but play along, for the sake of argument.) Or… Should they maybe just not have that job, since it’s a matter of what is legally required to do something? Whether it’s 1% or 100% of the population, it’s their beliefs that are more important, right?
Edit: I know this is a shitty argument. That’s the point.
Let’s say it’s my religion that I think you should not be allowed to drive because I don’t like you. Now let’s say I work at the DMV and you walk up, should I be allowed to deny you a license because it’s my religion?
