In June, we polled visitors to our Web site, and asked whether County Clerk Gregory Smith should allow employees, based on religious convictions, to not perform same-sex marriage duties; 79 percent of readers responded “no.”

Readers posted comments to a story published on our site May 29 (www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=12333), calling the county employees who refused to participate in same-sex marriage proceedings bigots, and urging Smith to force employees to do their jobs.

The controversy sparked statewide commentary; Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo wrote to the secretary of state and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors that allowing workers to only perform marriages between a man and a woman would be inconsistent with the California Supreme Court’s ruling granting same-sex couples the right to marry.

“County clerks have no legal standing to grant county employees the authority or ability to choose which marriages they choose not to officiate, based on their personal views or biases,” Delgadillo wrote.

In San Diego, 14 county employees objected to performing same-sex marriage duties, though several withdrew objections when Smith said workers who refused would have to be reassigned within the department or county. Smith said allowing the workers to opt out of performing ceremonies for same-sex couples would “unfairly burden” other employees – but, under state law, Smith was required to offer the alternative: reassignment.

According to Government Code Section 12940, employers are required to explore “any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating the religious belief or observance [of an employee], including the possibilities of excusing the person from those duties that conflict with his or her religious belief.”

The trouble with the government code is it is broad, and enshrines discrimination in state law.

What’s to stop a Catholic employee in the county clerk’s office from refusing to issue a marriage license to a divorcee and new partner? Or what’s to stop an Evangelical Christian from refusing to issue a marriage license to an unwed couple who is expecting a baby? Would a conservative Muslim employee be allowed to excuse himself from officiating a wedding between a Muslim/non-Muslim couple?

In other realms, would a religious bank employee be allowed to refuse a mortgage application for a same-sex couple? The employee, if reassigned, could expect to run into a similar issue at another bank branch.

Would a Christian police officer be allowed to refuse to lead a funeral procession for a gay man? And if so, how confident can the public be in the officer’s vow to serve and protect?

What precedent do we set by allowing public servants – and in fact all employees – to pick and choose whom they serve? What are “reasonable, alternative means” and how far do we go to accommodate employees who refuse to do their jobs, based on religious beliefs?

Once you allow employees to dictate the rules of employment, compromise becomes a slippery slope, leading to a breakdown in service and a slew of lawsuits. A number of people identify as Christian or have some religious affiliation, though they aren’t members of a church congregation and aren’t actively involved with any religious organizations; but for an opportunist, identifying as Christian may come in handy if an opportunity for litigation presents itself.

The reality is: The terms and contracts of employment aren’t always conducive to our scruples; at times, employees will be asked to work under extenuating circumstances, in hostile environments, or with co-workers or clients who don’t share their value system.

Refusing to do a job you were hired to do is grounds for termination; if an employee can’t do his or her job based on their religious convictions, we doubt their qualifications to work effectively in any public sector.