Jennifer Schoenrock works as a deputy
clerk handling court tasks, such as filing criminal records and certifying
marriage licenses. Schoenrock has made the preemptive decision that she is not
comfortable issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples: she takes no issue
with civil unions, yet has qualms with certifying a license for a gay couple
that uses the word marriage, when her religious beliefs tell her that she
should not. She sees approving a marriage license for a homosexual couple
as abetting a sin, and as an act that does not glorify God.
According to Missouri's version of the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, of which 19 other states have a similar
version, states may only "impose a 'substantial burden' on a person's
religious freedom if it has a 'compelling interest' and is using the 'least
restrictive means' to accomplish that interest." If Schoenrock were
to be put in a situation in which she were asked to certify a marriage license
for a homosexual couple, her employer should accommodate her religious request
unless there were no less restrictive means by which the government could
accomplish its goal of certifying a gay marriage. Schoenrock's employer
should be able to easily meet her request so long as there is another clerk
available to issue the marriage license.
In Schoenrock's office, where fourteen
other deputy clerks are available and capable of certifying marriage licenses,
finding a suitable replacement to handle licenses for gay couples should not be
an issue. In the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Montana, where gay
marriage is legal, however, county clerk Kristie Boetler said that if a clerk's
religious beliefs were "so strong that you cannot [issue marriage licenses
to homosexual couples], a job in my office is not for you."
This case is similar to those in which
private-business owners were guided by their religious consciences and decided
not to serve homosexual customers, yet I would also argue that this case is
different in significant ways from those we have previously studied. In
situations in which an individual owns his private business I would argue that
he has complete authority to determine whom he would like to serve. In
Schoenrock's case, however, she is acting as an agent of the state working at a
state courthouse. I will contend that Schoenrock should not be forced to
certify marriage licenses to all homosexual couples as the Yellowstone clerk
suggested; yet if no other clerks were present to handle the request,
Schoenrock's status as an agent of the state administering government documents
would require her to comply with the request.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their
religious beliefs, unless it poses an undue burden on the employer. I
would argue that an accurate reading of this statue would prohibit employers
like Boetler in Yellowstone from hiring only employees willing to certify
marriage licenses for homosexual couples, but I would also argue that in some
circumstances accommodation is impossible and that an employee might have to
issue a license that conflicts with his personal religious beliefs. If,
for example, all fourteen other clerks in Schoenrock's office were not present
at the time a gay couple entered the courthouse to receive their marriage
license, Schoenrock should be compelled to serve the couple and certify their
license. Not doing so would place an undue burden on Schoenrock's
employer and would not be satisfying the state's compelling interest of granting
a marriage license to a couple requesting one.
When determining if there are situations in which a clerk might have to abandon her free-exercise rights, I would argue that they exist, but should be avoided and accommodated whenever possible. The reason that this case is different from the baker, for example, is that a baker owns her own shop and conducts business as she pleases, while a courthouse clerk works for the state doing state business.
What do you think? Are there situations in which you think a clerk might have to abandon her free-exercise rights in order to satisfy the interest of the state, or should First Amendment rights always prevail?
3 comments:
I agree with a lot of the points Emily raises here. Cases where the Free Exercise rights of employees of the State are different than cases where Free Exercise is at stake in the private sector. For private businesses, I believe that the government should not compel people to act against there religious beliefs as that would violate the Free Exercise Clause. With state employees, I believe that while the government should be open to accommodating religious beliefs, they should not be expected to make accommodations when the accommodations directly inhibit the workers ability or willingness to perform the purpose of the job that they are hired for. In this case of clerk's issuing marriage licenses, the government would be in line by avoiding hiring clerks who are unwilling to issue licenses to all couples since religious exercise is contrary to performance of the job. The First Amendment should protect State workers to exercise there religion as long as it does not inhibit there ability to perform their job.
I agree with some of your points, but she is a state paid employee whose job is to carry out a public service. In regards to private business owners the state should not force their hand, but when the employee is paid by the state she should be compelled to issue the license and her free exercise right should in fact be superseded. As Peter stated, her religious beliefs would inhibit her from performing her job. She should leave those beliefs at the door when she becomes a state employee and pick them back up when she goes home.
Post a Comment