Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
Related: About this forumUtah Police Officer Refuses to Protect Gay Pride Marchers. Religious Liberty in Action?
A scene from the 2014 Utah Pride Parade in Salt Lake City. (Photo byJim Urquhart/Reuters)
June 9 2014 1:39 PM
By Mark Joseph Stern
The First Amendment guarantees any group the right to march through public streets to spread its message, regardless of its ideology. The Utah Constitution requires all police officers to discharge the duties of [their] office with fidelityincluding the duty to protect those who are marching through the streets to spread their message. So what happens when a police officer disagrees with the message being spread by the marchers? Should he have the religious liberty to opt out of the duties of his office?
Thats the question of the day in Salt Lake City, where an officer refused to guard a gay pride parade over the weekend because he dislikes its extremely political pro-gay message. The officer has since been placed on paid leave, but some conservative Christians have defended his refusal as an exercise of religious freedom. To them, the officers demurral is nearly identical to the baker, the florist, and the photographer who refused to serve gay weddingsand faced civil penalties for their defiance.
Ive made my views on this infamous trio clear: I dont think generally applicable anti-discrimination laws can be trumped by personal religious principles. But I hope those who disagree with me there recognize that this most recent incident is far more dangerous than any previous case of LGBTQ religious refusal. The officers who protect pride marchers are not endorsing their beliefs or participating in the parade themselves. Theyre merely protecting the safety of those who do choose to spread such beliefs. And allowing officers to opt out of their basic duty to protect citizens with whom they disagree is tantamount to valuing personal animus over both public safety and the First Amendment itself.
Consider the abominable precedent the Salt Lake City case could set. If we accept that idea that protecting parade participants amounts to endorsing their ideology, then no radical group could safely march again. What officer, after all, wants to go on record supporting the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Churchtwo groups that, despite their noxious views, have helped shape our national conversation around race and gay rights? The Supreme Court has affirmed both groups right to protest in public, but that right may evaporate once officers can opt out of protecting their demonstrations.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/09/salt_lake_city_police_officer_won_t_protect_gay_pride_parade.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1062 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Utah Police Officer Refuses to Protect Gay Pride Marchers. Religious Liberty in Action? (Original Post)
rug
Jun 2014
OP
Do they not get the basic concept of a civil servant, versus private enterprise?
AtheistCrusader
Jun 2014
#3
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)1. The Man Needs To Find Another Line Of Work, Sir
He is not fit to be a police officer.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)2. NO NO NO. Insubordination, voluntary resignation.
Can Fundie Muslims, etc. cops refuse calls for assistance by unmarried women? No. Christian cops refuse to protect women's health clinics? No.
Slippery slope there.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)3. Do they not get the basic concept of a civil servant, versus private enterprise?
I mean, bad enough they don't understand Title II, and public accommodation/services, but THIS? This too, is a bridge too far for their tiny fucking minds?