Many on the right are pushing the idea of Conscience Rights as a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom. I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but keeping your job while refusing to do it fully is not.
Certain occupations and services are controlled and administered by the state. The functions of these services are not available for just anyone to carry out, only those licenced by the state can fulfill them. Military, Police, medicine, pharmacy, marriage etc. Because the state provides them for all of their citizens, these services must be available for all of their citizens.
Anybody wishing to enter these professions does so knowing that they will be providing a service for every single citizen in their area of jurisdiction. If a person enters a state provided profession with beliefs that prevent them from providing the required services to anyone of the folk who might need that service in their jurisdiction; then they are being dishonest with their employer. Being dishonest when applying for a job is usually grounds for dismissal.
If after having been in a position for a while, the public servant has a revelation that means that they can no longer provide that service to all potential clients, then the honest thing to do would be to resign their position and seek a job more in keeping with their new views.
Imagine a soldier (a public servant) who after a tour of duty changes their point of view about the legitimacy of killing their fellow human beings. This soldier now has a worldview which cannot let them justify the killing of another human being. The soldier agrees to fulfill all the normal duties of other soldiers except ones that involve the possibility that include the killing of another human.
I think we will all agree that there is no way that the soldier could continue serving as a soldier and depending on the time of the change of mind, they could be gaoled for their actions. Any soldier in this position really has no option but to say, the soldiers life is no longer for them and resign.
Please don’t think this example is far fetched, here is an example and the soldier concerned did the honourable thing and I salute them for their honesty. A marriage commissioner, pharmacist etc who cannot do their civic duty fully is in the same position and should be equally as honourable.
Unfortunately the real reason for this conscience rights push is not noble, it is to act as a veil for bigotry, prejudice and the need to tell others to get back into the closet or kitchen. So the chances of seeing any honour exhibited by the religious and political bigots involved are not very great. The whining on the other hand, well need I elaborate further?
UPDATE
I just stumbled across this from the NP. Seems this writer and me independently think along the same lines. Included for completion.
The problem is that these services/professions being “controlled by the state”. Licensing alone does not mean the state should dictate how those services are provided – only that they meet the requirements to do so SAFELY. And marriage commissioners are not the only ones granted the power to conduct marriages – priests, imams, ministers and others in religious organizations do to – I don’t see the state dictating to them.
Doctors are legally prohibited (by the Canada Health Act) from offering their services privately, and I am legally prohibited from buying private health insurance. It is only because doctors are paid only by the state that the state has this power – and why should they have this power? Would you have the state dictate what a catholic priest might say in his church?
Whether you have a problem with the state reserving some service provision for itself or not is another question. Right now the only way that folk can legally be married is via state regulation. Even church folk have to have state approval to conduct a ceremony (http://www.servicealberta.ca/1151.cfm) but the law allows them the freedom to exhibit intolerance as long as their superstition has it written into the doctrine. So your point regarding this is moot. Catholic priests can still refuse to marry folk in love because they don’t approve of their lifestyle; yeay for tolerance.
The only recourse gay folk have to get married is via non-religious channels and that is the marriage commissioner system. If you are anti-gay because of religious reasons then stick to the religious route for conducting marriages, don’t shut down the only route couples whom religions hate can use.
“The only recourse gay folk have to get married is via non-religious channels and that is the marriage commissioner system.”
Untrue. The Unitarian Church has been conducting homosexual marriage ceremonies for years.
However, the point remains: Anybody should be permitted to refer a prospective client to another service provider willing to provide service, should the referring provider have an issue of conscience. The strange thing about a capitalist system is, where there’s a need, there’s a person willing to fill it.
Steven
If you work for the government and provide a public service then that’s what you sign on to do. Deciding that some members of the public are not able to receive their public service from you is not an option, unless it involves criminal proceedings.
You are in the wrong job if you want to pick and choose. Imagine a parole officer refusing a client based on sexual orientation? Or a firefighter deciding they couldn’t save a house because of the occupant’s race.
That’s the thing about government services, they aren’t free market services and the conditions are better for employees because of it.