Let me start by saying, the last thing I intend to do is advertise myself in the yellow pages as a wedding officiant. I am not on some random "let's marry people for fun" crusade, either. I do work in the wedding industry and on wedding day we are plenty busy enough already - but if there is anything at all that I can do, as a wedding professional, to either "save the day" or provide a service nobody in town offers, I always will man.
That being said, it seems the State of Ohio has the same closed-minded ideas that most any major religion does (we're right, you're wrong, we have better lobbyists than you, yadda yadda yadda). I do not mean to stand on my soapbox, but I will say religious bias and persecution are the very reasons I avoid bible-thumping institutions. I think those very same reasons are why many of you visited the Dudeism pages and said "whoa, that's cool stuff".
So, to the point - in response to my official application to the secretary of state for a "license to solemnize marriages", I receive the below letter. I think in that legal-ese somewhere is a sure sign of hypocrisy and religious prejudice, but take from it your own interpretation (the state certainly takes liberty in their own interpretation so why shouldn't we?).
Some take Dudeism seriously, some do not. Either way, the principle is that arbitrary standards have been established by the non-dudely states to keep new ideas out of their ancient system of religious beliefs. (why accept it, when you can reject it? - buzz-kill, man.)
Anyway, If there were any doubt whether Dudeism is recognized by the State of Ohio, read below. Whether the state's rejection of Dudeism, based on their own theistic ideas, is morally / ethically / legally right is the very point which I put up for debate.
Take it easy, my brothers and sisters.
Dudely Yours,
Sir Dickman
-- Start --
JON HUSTED
OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE
CLIENT SERVICE CENTER - RECORDS
180 EAST BROAD STREET, SUITE 103
COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 USA
TEL: (614) 728-9200 / (877) 767-6446
FAX: (614) 995-5749 [OHIO SOS WEBSITE ADDRESS]
[RECIPIENT NAME]
[RECIPIENT STREET ADDRESS]
[RECIPIENT CITY/STATE/ZIP]
This acknowledges receipt of your request for a minister's license to perform marriages in the State of Ohio. They are being returned to you for the reason(s) listed below:
You are requesting to be licensed with the Church of the Latter Day-Dude however after a review of the information on the Dudeism web page:
*O. R. C. 3101.10 states in part that: "A minister upon producing credentials of his being a regular ordained or licensed minister of any religious society or conregation shall be entitled to receive from the Secretary of State...a license." These are not interpreted to include professional organizations or groups whose members are actually affiliated with other denominations and who cannot consider their group to comprise a "congregation."
Please return this letter with your document(s). If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (614) 728-9200 or (877) 767-6446.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
Marty Bard
License Administrator
[Reference #]
-- End --
Bummer dude.
But welcome to the forum dude. 8)
Hey, SD,
It seems to me that the OH Secretary of State's bases for rejection are totally fucked because, according to the quoted article, we don't have to be a congregation -- we can be a religious society. It's likely that there's a definition of "religious society" elsewhere in the code, but perhaps not. Whether or not there is, I think an argument could be made that since Dudeism is a religion that has followers that socially engage with each other, we are indeed a religious society. Do we need to state that outright? I don't know, but I don't think it would be a stretch to do so.
On another point made in the letter, although some of us may be members of local churches, synagogues, etc., I'm sure there are plenty of dudes who are not "actually affiliated with other denominations" (which is an inappropriate reference anyway because Dudeism is a religion, not a denomination of a religion). This is a huge assumption on the part of the SoS, and, I think, quite incorrect.
I have no background in law, but I just get the feeling that a lawyer would have a field day with Ohio's reasons for rejection. My opinion, mang.
In Dudeliness,
Outer Element
Welcome to our beach community, dude.
Yeah, a state or two are acting like fucking Walter pulling a piece out on the lanes and trying to mark it zero for dudeism. Fucking nazis, man. Human paraquats. Nothing ever ever changes.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3101
3101.08 Who may solemnize marriages.
An ordained or licensed minister of any religious society or congregation within this state who is licensed to solemnize marriages, a judge of a county court in accordance with section 1907.18 of the Revised Code, a judge of a municipal court in accordance with section 1901.14 of the Revised Code, a probate judge in accordance with section 2101.27 of the Revised Code, the mayor of a municipal corporation in any county in which such municipal corporation wholly or partly lies, the superintendent of the state school for the deaf, or any religious society in conformity with the rules of its church, may join together as husband and wife any persons who are not prohibited by law from being joined in marriage.
Effective Date: 04-11-1991
3101.10 License to solemnize marriages.
A minister upon producing to the secretary of state, credentials of his being a regularly ordained or licensed minister of any religious society or congregation, shall be entitled to receive from the secretary of state a license authorizing him to solemnize marriages in this state so long as he continues as a regular minister in such society or congregation. A minister shall produce for inspection his license to solemnize marriages upon demand of any party to a marriage at which he officiates or proposes to officiate or upon demand of any probate judge.
Effective Date: 06-04-1976
Check this out, too (durned innarestin'):
3101.06 Denying license.
No marriage license shall be granted when either of the applicants is under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or controlled substance or is infected with syphilis in a form that is communicable or likely to become communicable.
Effective Date: 04-09-1981
We have gathered into a group, it is based around a particular "faith"/world view, we have congregated.
Quote from: revgms on May 01, 2011, 09:48:11 AM
We have gathered into a group, it is based around a particular "faith"/world view, we have congregated.
Fucking eh! Like at bowling lanes all over the world. What more do these fucking human paraquats need?! We gather at bowling lanes and congregate. That should surfice! We know our rights, man!
.
Did you show em your letter of good standing?
We are a congregation in the general sense, but to fit the common conception of a religious congregation (which paraquat states like Ohio undoubtedly look for), we would need to meet regularly for worship. While we do praise the Dude and all things dudely, we don't set dates and times to do this all together in an organized fashion (do we, and/or has this been tried?).
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/congregation
1. a group of people assembled for religious worship.
? a group of people regularly attending a particular place of worship: he was a member of the Emmanuel Chapel congregation
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/congregation
1. a group of people who are gathered together in a church to worship God, not including the priest and choir
2. the group of people who belong to a particular church and go there regularly to worship
I looked over the O.R.C. and gave my best novice interpretation of the laws of the state, prior to applying for a minister's license. It is worthwhile to note:
There is no legal definition of "Congregation", in section 3101 - so I believe that would give way to any generally accepted definition of the word. "a group"
Section 3101.6, I believe this refers to the marriage license, not the minister's license. Either way, I was sober and not afflicted with an STD at the time...
I believe the phrase "regularly ordained" is interpreted as being a member in good standing with an up-to-date ordination subject to the religious society's rules for maintaining an ordination. This goes hand-in-hand with the state's own website that states "The license to marry is valid only as long as you remain a minister serving and representing the religious society or congregation as it appears on the State License to Solemnize Marriages in Ohio."
I know, based on reliable sources, the State of Ohio accepts ordination from Universal Life Church or World Christianship Ministries (I forget which one). This, in my novice opinion, sets precedence that a brick-and-mortar church with regular scheduled meeting times are not necessarily a requirement.
I personally consider a minister as anyone who lives by and spreads the message of a particular religious society. I think all of us spread peace, love, harmony, taking it easy, and an affinity for beer and bowling. I do not think that is a stretch from a reasonable man's interpretation.
As far as regular meetings, perhaps a podcast would qualify. It is not much different than televised church services, and is portable so you can reassure your dudely ways whenever convenient. Hmmm... interesting idea.
Not sure if I feel like pressing this issue or not, but I think the state's prejudice here is clearly established.
Dudely Yours,
Sir Dickman
ULC/WCM approval--definite precedent, man! Next step in my mind is a letter from a High Dude warning of the legal consequences of religious discrimination. I understand if you'd rather listen to whale sounds than pursue, but this dude would want his rug back!
I've always been suspicious of the Matrimonial Industrial Complex.
go for it dude!
Quote from: BikerDude on May 02, 2011, 01:06:35 PM
I've always been suspicious of the Matrimonial Industrial Complex.
Its all a travesty, man!
Use the ULC ordaination as a Dudeist Priest, that would be Dudely cunning, like taking any rug in the joint.
^^^ That's what I was thinking. Go to Universal Life Church, which is completely accepted in all 50 states, but make it a dudeist ceremony.
So, dudes, what do think think of the Church of the Latter Day Dude offering to send a threatening letter to whatever state rejected a dude's application for a license to solemnize marriages? The letter could say we are prepared to contact the ACLU if the situation isn't rectified, citing cases that have been won in court and whatever other legal backing we may have. It would basically be a form letter, ready to plug in recipient and address, then signed by a Dudely Higher-up with an appropriate official title and mailed.
We may be able to chip off more of those paraquat states this way. Plus, I think it would be very dudely if the CLDD were willing to step in just when a dude that has been rejected is ready to say fuck it. If this kind of a thing hasn't been done here before and if people think it's a good idea, I would be willing to do some research and put together a letter for review.
Sounds like a good idea to me, but we need to get The Dudely Lama's support on this one I think.
He needs to contact the lawyers down at the league office.
Damn--we have lawyers? Then, they'd know what to do.
Not sure, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to draft a letter just in case. ;D
I dunno, is this a fight we want to pick right now? Maybe, probably will have to some time. They are over the line, but do we want to be percieved as one who would pull a piece on the lanes.
Is there an appeals process? Would a less threatening, yo we are here, letter not satisfy this issue? Maybe explaining our "cyber congregation".
I'd say draw them out a little further on this, get them to expose their predjudices, and address them directly. If that doesn't work, then we let the lawyers show them what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass.
Quote from: revgms on May 10, 2011, 11:33:27 PM
I dunno, is this a fight we want to pick right now? Maybe, probably will have to some time. They are over the line, but do we want to be percieved as one who would pull a piece on the lanes.
Is there an appeals process? Would a less threatening, yo we are here, letter not satisfy this issue? Maybe explaining our "cyber congregation".
I'd say draw them out a little further on this, get them to expose their predjudices, and address them directly. If that doesn't work, then we let the lawyers show them what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass.
Sounds good to me. Asking about appeals process--very dudely.
Ah Fuck it.
Personally I don't recognise the state of Ohio!
The State of Ohio is not a worthy fucking adversary man..not like the man in the black pajamas...
I think drafting a letter to Ohio...call it The Lake Huron Statement...could be effective to address this case...however. it's important not to let our thinking get uptight. And make sure the letters is not the watered down version...
Recruiting a Brother Seamus to investigate the ins the outs and the strands in the old Secy of State's head....that's fucking interesting...
Seems like the Universal Life Church situation sets, like, a precedent...
Usually, states will take er easy when a religious group challenges their unchecked aggression....maybe an alliance with some fellow dudes in the Church of the Jedi may be in order...
but in the end..that's just their opinion, man..
Lao/LLS
Actually it's a human rights issue!
Under Article 9:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
(2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Wot?
Meekon
Articles 18 and 29.
Not that being free from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile isn't worthy, just, well....aw fuckit, mark it ten Dude.
It would be worth it to pursue it further.
Sounds like they're a bunch of fuckin fascists!
Anybody check with Dudely Lama on this?
Quote from: Outer Element on May 01, 2011, 01:03:48 AM
3101.10 License to solemnize marriages.
A minister upon producing to the secretary of state, credentials of his being a regularly ordained or licensed minister of any religious society or congregation, shall be entitled to receive from the secretary of state a license authorizing him to solemnize marriages in this state so long as he continues as a regular minister in such society or congregation. ...
... and what are the parameters of a religious society or congregation? are we to be discriminated against because we utilize the ether and not church pews, then?
but then again, how do
we define what constitutes a regular minister in our society? ???
i will state for the record that i think the "infected by syphillis" thing is an absolute hoot! :D
As with any "licensed" activity, you are applying to engage in an activity that is defined and bound by laws. You should be prepared to take reactionaries to court. Just remember to include your legal fees and reasonable costs in the suit. Sometimes just filing the paperwork will get you your way.
I just have a totally different view on this dudes. Jon Husted may or may not be a reactionary but I always try (and okay often fail) to start from assuming good-will. There could be a political back-lash for states licensing ministers in what some would describe as a non-serious (I know dude) religion. Maybe take the angle that he is cautious and nervous and what might work best is reassurance and reasoned argument. I sincerely believe that the inner dude lies at the heart of even those who are outwardly: nihilist, achievers or reactionaries. I live in France where there is endless red-tape. I have learnt to patiently and politely make my case until they feel comfortable saying yes. You have to take it easy on up-tight guys who don't have the benefit of rolling, reeefing or Russians.
I would try something like this:
Dear Mr Bard,
Thank you for your reply to my request for a licence to perform marriages. I understand your reservations in ensuring that ministers are bona fide representitives of genuine religions. In a position of responsibility, such as yours, this caution is reasonable. In this rapidly changing world there are many who take a somewhat conservative approach to religion and spirituality manifesting on the internet and in meetings that do not correspond with conventional norms. Perhaps this should be balanced with consideration of a greater threat - that of a growing trend towards atheism and those who believe in nothing. It would be sad to assume that because Dudeists have a sense of humour, that the religion itself is a joke. We have a set of shared values; which include a strong sense of friendship and the practice of non-violence, which are very real and Dudeism is a source of considerable inspiration and guidance in many people's lives etc' etc'
This is a real bummer man, I live in Cleveland and wanted to do the whole ordained minister thing. Maybe we can ban together and try to change this.
People comehere regularly to praise dudley actions and send messages of the good dudley word. Can't this forum be considered a place where we all gather regularly to worship? There a re certainly people from other relegions who do not go to worship regularly and are still able to be considered a part of that religious faction.
A good friend of mine and fellow dudeist priest went through the same process of application and rejection with the state of Ohio. He ended up getting licensed through the ULC and has officiated several weddings in the past few years. The ceremonies have not been overtly Dudeist in nature, but the underlying themes are there, and the fact that he, as the officiant, knew the bride and groom on a personal level made the ceremonies that much more poignant.
Maybe an organized mass-application by Dudeist Ohioans would prompt the SoS to re-examine his position on the issue. This is pure speculation, but I have to imagine the only basis for rejection of Dudeist priests and acceptance of ULC ministers boils down to number of applicants. I would bet that the early applicants from the ULC were rejected, too.
Quote from: BigfishXD on December 15, 2011, 07:20:30 PM
A good friend of mine and fellow dudeist priest went through the same process of application and rejection with the state of Ohio. He ended up getting licensed through the ULC and has officiated several weddings in the past few years. The ceremonies have not been overtly Dudeist in nature, but the underlying themes are there, and the fact that he, as the officiant, knew the bride and groom on a personal level made the ceremonies that much more poignant.
Maybe an organized mass-application by Dudeist Ohioans would prompt the SoS to re-examine his position on the issue. This is pure speculation, but I have to imagine the only basis for rejection of Dudeist priests and acceptance of ULC ministers boils down to number of applicants. I would bet that the early applicants from the ULC were rejected, too.
Sure wouldn't hurt to have more applications dude!
Welcome to the beach party dude! 8)
Sorry if I missed a few new dudes here, but I been "away" for awhile. Hope to be more "here" in the near future. 8)
Quote from: cckeiser on December 15, 2011, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: BigfishXD on December 15, 2011, 07:20:30 PM
A good friend of mine and fellow dudeist priest went through the same process of application and rejection with the state of Ohio. He ended up getting licensed through the ULC and has officiated several weddings in the past few years. The ceremonies have not been overtly Dudeist in nature, but the underlying themes are there, and the fact that he, as the officiant, knew the bride and groom on a personal level made the ceremonies that much more poignant.
Maybe an organized mass-application by Dudeist Ohioans would prompt the SoS to re-examine his position on the issue. This is pure speculation, but I have to imagine the only basis for rejection of Dudeist priests and acceptance of ULC ministers boils down to number of applicants. I would bet that the early applicants from the ULC were rejected, too.
Sure wouldn't hurt to have more applications dude!
Welcome to the beach party dude! 8)
Sorry if I missed a few new dudes here, but I been "away" for awhile. Hope to be more "here" in the near future. 8)
Welcome back, cc dude!
Thankee! 8)
Quote from: BigfishXD on December 15, 2011, 07:20:30 PM
A good friend of mine and fellow dudeist priest went through the same process of application and rejection with the state of Ohio. He ended up getting licensed through the ULC and has officiated several weddings in the past few years. The ceremonies have not been overtly Dudeist in nature, but the underlying themes are there, and the fact that he, as the officiant, knew the bride and groom on a personal level made the ceremonies that much more poignant.
Maybe an organized mass-application by Dudeist Ohioans would prompt the SoS to re-examine his position on the issue. This is pure speculation, but I have to imagine the only basis for rejection of Dudeist priests and acceptance of ULC ministers boils down to number of applicants. I would bet that the early applicants from the ULC were rejected, too.
Dude, welcome to our beach community. Grab a recliner, an oat soda and join the divine madness! Bar's over there, dude!
BigfishXD: Welcome. Just slip the rent under the door.
Welcome Bigfish, and welcome back CC ;)
I can't help but love the name Ohio, because the Japanese for goodmorning is Ohayo. Which means whenever I watch American Dad, I can't help sing along to the themetune not "Goodmorning USA!" but "Ohayo Ohio!" Sad, but that's just the sort of man I am ;D
Plus I hear you have a of of Amish communities out there. Any state that's down with beards is good in my books :)
I am also located in Ohio and am very interested in seeing this issue dealt with, in some form or fashion.
Has there been any updates on this?
I am strongly considering revisiting this issue. I've started looking for the right attorney to represent the Dudeist point of view.
Has anyone tried to apply in Illinois? Just wondering if it would be a hassle here, it would be most Dudely to be able to marry people here . Suckers!
Quote from: okfinewhateva on May 27, 2012, 12:26:53 AM
Has anyone tried to apply in Illinois? Just wondering if it would be a hassle here, it would be most Dudely to be able to marry people here . Suckers!
You can look up the laws for all the States here:
http://usmarriagelaws.com/
Welcome to our nice quiet beach community dude....smoke em if you got em! 8)
I found this:
n a nutshell: Ordained ministers, judges, retired judges, and public officials whose powers include solemnization of marriages
(750 ILCS 5/209) (from Ch. 40, par. 209) Sec. 209. Solemnization and Registration.) (a) A marriage may be solemnized by a judge of a court of record, by a retired judge of a court of record, unless the retired judge was removed from office by the Judicial Inquiry Board, except that a retired judge shall not receive any compensation from the State, a county or any unit of local government in return for the solemnization of a marriage and there shall be no effect upon any pension benefits conferred by the Judges Retirement System of Illinois, by a judge of the Court of Claims, by a county clerk in counties having 2,000,000 or more inhabitants, by a public official whose powers include solemnization of marriages, or in accordance with the prescriptions of any religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group, provided that when such prescriptions require an officiant, the officiant be in good standing with his religious denomination, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group. Either the person solemnizing the marriage, or, if no individual acting alone solemnized the marriage, both parties to the marriage, shall complete the marriage certificate form and forward it to the county clerk within 10 days after such marriage is solemnized.
I guess I need to be dudely with the admins here and the Dudely Lama .I might be able to pull it off , though.
You can get your letter of good standing from the dudeist website and as long as you don't get revoked you should be all good. Some states think somehow a congregation and funding for a church with tax exempt status is the way to see if a religion is legit but to me that is just a way to control the sheep and possibly a way to make it corrupt. Money+power rarely does any good in this world so I am happy there is not much of it flying around dudeism.
Where in IL are you at bro? I live by mount prospect and work by Ohare (across from the strip club)
I am in the southern part of Illinois , the virtual epicenter of absolutely nothing . Marion-Carbondale area.I think I am gonna have to go for this , officiating a ceremony would be great moment in Dude history for me.
fuck it dude, you, like a dueist priest, dude. your one of us, so marry the dude, dude
I'm kinda late to this conversation but I was wondering if the Ohio situation got worked out. I just wanna know what steps were taken to rectify this if I hit these snags in Utah or Georgia. Thankee dudes.
The other way round this is to give a Dudeist blessing, and let the registry office deal with the legal mumbo-jumbo.
Wow. That's pretty lame man.
Pagans have been doing things this way for years, I personally attended a Pagan Handfasting a few weeks back (see my facebook page for photo's), a few days after the main registry affair.
Our main problem is the fact we are not "christian" or "buddhists" or "muslims" or any of the other faiths (ideologies) that the US (or UK) government want to "recognise".
Despite lots of campaigns in the UK to do with census data here it requires an act of parliament to get a religion "recognised".
Previously you could rely on the church of eternal lights ordination but I believe there has been a clamp down on that one.
personally I think we should start a page of "We Dudeists do not recognise the following states and countries!" page on the Dudes paper or official site. On the basis of if they don't recognise us we refuse to recognise them. Just to show them we can be just as idiotic.
I just think its ridiculous that there has to be that much crap. Not to trash talk other religious ideas but if a guy can claim he is the last prophet of god and tell people he has mystical plates with messages from god and still be a "real religion" we can't we be able to perform a marriage... That's my hang up.
Quote from: rev-jaholbrook on August 13, 2012, 09:54:31 AM
Wow. That's pretty lame man.
But you have to admit, it IS very dude-like. ;D
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on August 13, 2012, 09:06:06 PM
Quote from: rev-jaholbrook on August 13, 2012, 09:54:31 AM
Wow. That's pretty lame man.
But you have to admit, it IS very dude-like. ;D
How so? Doesn't sound like slacking to me!! ;-)
Quote from: Hominid on August 13, 2012, 10:01:06 PM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on August 13, 2012, 09:06:06 PM
Quote from: rev-jaholbrook on August 13, 2012, 09:54:31 AM
Wow. That's pretty lame man.
But you have to admit, it IS very dude-like. ;D
How so? Doesn't sound like slacking to me!! ;-)
I was thinking a dude-like wedding would consist of........
"I do, she does, we will." ;D Done, now time for coitus!
Haha right on!
Quote from: rev-jaholbrook on August 13, 2012, 04:37:10 PM
I just think its ridiculous that there has to be that much crap. Not to trash talk other religious ideas but if a guy can claim he is the last prophet of god and tell people he has mystical plates with messages from god and still be a "real religion" we can't we be able to perform a marriage... That's my hang up.
Well once we've spent a couple of thousand years infiltrating every aspect of society and are finally in control of most of the civilized world, then we will be able to make the rules.
;D
Haha. Fair enough.
Quote from: Hominid on August 13, 2012, 10:01:06 PM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on August 13, 2012, 09:06:06 PM
Quote from: rev-jaholbrook on August 13, 2012, 09:54:31 AM
Wow. That's pretty lame man.
But you have to admit, it IS very dude-like. ;D
How so? Doesn't sound like slacking to me!! ;-)
Getting others to do all the hard work sounds like a master stroke in slacking to me!
Oh wait was that sarcasm again?
I was in a State of Ohio once....a few White Russian soon cured me of That! 8)
I know this is an old post that i am resurrecting, but I was wondering if there is any word on if this situation has been resolved for the original poster.
Deleted due to censorship
Quote from: steve44147 on September 06, 2012, 05:24:32 PM
I know this is an old post that i am resurrecting, but I was wondering if there is any word on if this situation has been resolved for the original poster.
I found a list of ministers from the Church of the Latter-Day Dude on the minister index of the Ohio Attorney General website. So, if they are now saying that they do not accept Dudeism, they are full of crap! All you have to do is refer them to their own list of ministers registered with their office.
As a matter of fact, here is a screen shot of the list off of the state's website (if I can post images on my first ever forum post...).
Good find, dude! (http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/classic/images/post/thumbup.gif)
Dude, that's a major breach of privacy, showing people's names and addresses....
It's all public record available for anyone to see on the Ohio Attorney General's website. So, it is not an invasion of anyone's privacy. If they didn't want people to see it, then they could have chose not to have their information added to a public directory. It's no more of an invasion of privacy than the white pages.
Quote from: Hominid on September 06, 2012, 07:14:37 PM
Dude, that's a major breach of privacy, showing people's names and addresses....
True, it could be, but since it's already online, their privacy is moot. But you bring out out a good point, Hominid dude. The only reason a government would have that online is so that a person could check to see if a dude's credentials were valid, otherwise; "hey, this is a private residence, man." Another example of NOTHING being private to fucking government these days!
No breech of privacy, just something called the Sunshine Laws ("any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection"). By registering with the state as a minister, that made all of the information you submitted public record. When I registered, I used a PO box, so no one would show up at my "private residence."
steve44147 dude, I made a slight edit of the post so as to keep it a private residence as possible, that should do it I think, dudes. No worries, just doing my janitor duties. A few burgers, a few beers, our troubles are over, dudes.
So there are dudeist ministers registered with the state? Blam-o! Those guys should be good right?
Wow. Amazing...
Quote from: steve44147 on September 06, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
No breech of privacy, just something called the Sunshine Laws ("any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection"). By registering with the state as a minister, that made all of the information you submitted public record. When I registered, I used a PO box, so no one would show up at my "private residence."
Smart to use a PO box. The others on that graphic didn't. As "legit" the Sunshine Laws may be, we should err on the side of caution and not participate in the same indiscriminate behaviour as our governments, specifically, splashing personal information all over the place. As dudes, our attitude to privacy shouldn't reflect the fascist big brother assholes who don't give a shit about the individual. Would you want someone knocking on your door asking "Donny, is this your homework???" ;-)
Good move DB...
Good idea, Dude.
Yeah, the whole public record thing bums me out. Gonna have to have a public license in a few years, and I don't like that my home address will be given out. I need to get one of those boxes.
Quote from: steve44147 on September 06, 2012, 05:24:32 PM
I know this is an old post that i am resurrecting, but I was wondering if there is any word on if this situation has been resolved for the original poster.
Deleted due to censorship
No harm intended, dude. Just a minor change to keep the integrity of your post and to keep this a private residence. By blurring out the addresses your post still made the same point and impact, and the dude's in the list, at least on the forum here, have their privacy maintained. Still say it is a good find, dude. Just keeping things cool on the site, which is my humble duty.
Quote from: steve44147 on September 06, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
No breech of privacy, just something called the Sunshine Laws ("any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection"). By registering with the state as a minister, that made all of the information you submitted public record. When I registered, I used a PO box, so no one would show up at my "private residence."
Fuckin' eh, man; use of a PO Box is a good thing.
Quote from: Hominid on September 06, 2012, 08:51:54 PM
Quote from: steve44147 on September 06, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
No breech of privacy, just something called the Sunshine Laws ("any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection"). By registering with the state as a minister, that made all of the information you submitted public record. When I registered, I used a PO box, so no one would show up at my "private residence."
Smart to use a PO box. The others on that graphic didn't. As "legit" the Sunshine Laws may be, we should err on the side of caution and not participate in the same indiscriminate behaviour as our governments, specifically, splashing personal information all over the place. As dudes, our attitude to privacy shouldn't reflect the fascist big brother assholes who don't give a shit about the individual. Would you want someone knocking on your door asking "Donny, is this your homework???" ;-)
Good move DB...
|
This coming from someone who posts a link to their personal web site on their profile... a web site that lists their business address. A business they have openly admitted was a home-based business. So I am confused as to why someone that does that would be upset when the addresses are shown that belong to people who have provided that to a website knowing it is going to be posted for public view. ???
I am not trying to be difficult, just confused why some folks need to point fingers at people who are trying to help. I posted the contact information so people who are having these very problems registering with Ohio can contact the people listed for guidance. It's not like I posted their birth dates or home phone numbers...
I know no one is going to go knocking on their doors asking "Donny is this your homework?". Since no one here is that disrespectful (and the post could only be viewed by registered members). Plus, no one ever asked Donny about his homework...they did ask Larry though. ;D
Fuck it...let's go bowling.
Quote from: steve44147 on September 07, 2012, 02:27:09 AM
This coming from someone who posts a link to their personal web site on their profile... a web site that lists their business address. A business they have openly admitted was a home-based business. So I am confused as to why someone that does that would be upset when the addresses are shown that belong to people who have provided that to a website knowing it is going to be posted for public view. ???
There is one obvious answer; Hominid posted his address on his site himself, and then linked it in his profile, he choose to do so; the other dudes, while posting their private information on the state's site, didn't choose to do it here. All in all, its really no big deal. I made a small change on the image you posted to preserve some privacy and still keep your post as intact as possible. I mean, what does it matter if you can no longer see the dude's addresses in your post? Your point is still well taken and valid.
Also, Hominid's suggestion was a valid one (whether everyone agrees or not), as would any suggestion from you, Steve dude, even if you are right or wrong, your suggestion would be respected. Hominid suggested that it (the image in your post) violated some privacy and I thought of a way (was no great thing on my part) to keep your post intact and take Hominid's suggestion at the same time. The solution worked for both sides of the issue.
The art of "takin' er easy, dude"...a dude-like concept.
No worries, dude. Don't let it park in your brain. ;)
Quote from: steve44147 on September 07, 2012, 02:27:09 AM
Quote from: Hominid on September 06, 2012, 08:51:54 PM
Quote from: steve44147 on September 06, 2012, 08:01:53 PM
No breech of privacy, just something called the Sunshine Laws ("any records made or received by any public agency in the course of its official business are available for inspection"). By registering with the state as a minister, that made all of the information you submitted public record. When I registered, I used a PO box, so no one would show up at my "private residence."
Smart to use a PO box. The others on that graphic didn't. As "legit" the Sunshine Laws may be, we should err on the side of caution and not participate in the same indiscriminate behaviour as our governments, specifically, splashing personal information all over the place. As dudes, our attitude to privacy shouldn't reflect the fascist big brother assholes who don't give a shit about the individual. Would you want someone knocking on your door asking "Donny, is this your homework???" ;-)
Good move DB...
|
This coming from someone who posts a link to their personal web site on their profile... a web site that lists their business address. A business they have openly admitted was a home-based business. So I am confused as to why someone that does that would be upset when the addresses are shown that belong to people who have provided that to a website knowing it is going to be posted for public view. ???
I am not trying to be difficult, just confused why some folks need to point fingers at people who are trying to help. I posted the contact information so people who are having these very problems registering with Ohio can contact the people listed for guidance. It's not like I posted their birth dates or home phone numbers...
I know no one is going to go knocking on their doors asking "Donny is this your homework?". Since no one here is that disrespectful (and the post could only be viewed by registered members). Plus, no one ever asked Donny about his homework...they did ask Larry though. ;D
Fuck it...let's go bowling.
DB: ...handled with professionalism and finesses as usual.
Stevie: It was indeed Larry's homework. What an amateur mistake, sheesh, what I am I doing posting here, I should be banished to my bedroom.
If the US freedom of information works like the UK, we did not collect the data so would have to notify the people that we want to publish their details so they can choose to opt out. You may find your "Sunshine laws" only apply to information not people.
As others have said it's always best to err on the side of caution.
Dudes - stop getting all uptight over a post. I'm a licensed minister (ULC) in Ohio and I know that my address is on line for the world to see. How stupid would someone have to be to re-type addresses from a JPG when all they have to do is go to the Ohio Secretary of State's web site and just cut and paste names all day long? We're not morons here.
As for Ohio having some licensed Dudeists - while Ohio has possibly set a precedent, the last thing we would want is for these folks to have their licenses pulled by thise fkn nihilists in Columbus, OH. A run on the capital is not the answer here. Please hold tight. The Dudely Llama is a wise guy - I mean, wise man and I have great faith that he will find a solution to all of this (no pressure, Olly!)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on September 07, 2012, 03:01:45 AM
Quote from: steve44147 on September 07, 2012, 02:27:09 AM
This coming from someone who posts a link to their personal web site on their profile... a web site that lists their business address. A business they have openly admitted was a home-based business. So I am confused as to why someone that does that would be upset when the addresses are shown that belong to people who have provided that to a website knowing it is going to be posted for public view. ???
There is one obvious answer; Hominid posted his address on his site himself, and then linked it in his profile, he choose to do so; the other dudes, while posting their private information on the state's site, didn't choose to do it here. All in all, its really no big deal. I made a small change on the image you posted to preserve some privacy and still keep your post as intact as possible. I mean, what does it matter if you can no longer see the dude's addresses in your post? Your point is still well taken and valid.
Also, Hominid's suggestion was a valid one (whether everyone agrees or not), as would any suggestion from you, Steve dude, even if you are right or wrong, your suggestion would be respected. Hominid suggested that it (the image in your post) violated some privacy and I thought of a way (was no great thing on my part) to keep your post intact and take Hominid's suggestion at the same time. The solution worked for both sides of the issue.
The art of "takin' er easy, dude"...a dude-like concept.
No worries, dude. Don't let it park in your brain. ;)
I have past professional experience with medical records, both writing them as a nurse, and storing them electronically as a unix systems administrator... and I've taught a class or two on privacy ethics. Legally, if someone's personal information is made public without their consent, legal mitigation can follow if it can be shown that there was no obvious waiver of privacy. I wouldn't have a clue if those dudes knew their personal info was public, but my instincts screamed "NO!". So again, best to err on the side of caution.
Yes, yes, HIPAA is cool. I dig your ethos, man...
Since the graphic is no longer posted, let's move on to the main strand of this post: How to get Ohio to recognize The Church of the Latter-Day Dude.
Quote from: ScoopDudeist on September 07, 2012, 03:17:36 PM
Yes, yes, HIPAA is cool. I dig your ethos, man...
Since the graphic is no longer posted, let's move on to the main strand of this post: How to get Ohio to recognize The Church of the Latter-Day Dude.
Welcome to the divine madness and dude-topia, ScoopDudeist. Good to have you here, bar's over there!
Ok, it seems like one of the main hurdles here would be that there isn't a regular place of worship in Ohio for dudeists. The question then is what would it take to have a regular worship? If I get 5 people together once a week for a few months to talk about life over some chicken wings and beer does that constitute worship? Or maybe bowl ten frames and call it "communion."
Absolutely dude.I've been doing it for a couple of years now.Don't preach dude, just show the way.
I recently jumped through a few hoops with Nevada, listed my home address as "place of worship", paperwork went though fine. Nevada is another one with a long to-do list for this kind of thing, let me know if I can help.
I don't mean to suggest anything that requires an un-dudely amount of action, but online petitions have done a lot of work lately. I've worked on some national campaigns to change BSA policy and that worked pretty well. I think a change.org petition to Ohio government listing the reasons we qualify as a legitimate church could actually work. Any opinions on whether or not I should do that?
Quote from: Pappa Smurph on August 18, 2013, 08:51:05 PM
I don't mean to suggest anything that requires an un-dudely amount of action, but online petitions have done a lot of work lately. I've worked on some national campaigns to change BSA policy and that worked pretty well. I think a change.org petition to Ohio government listing the reasons we qualify as a legitimate church could actually work. Any opinions on whether or not I should do that?
Welcome Pappa Smurph dude, rugs are free, and free of pee, here in our beach community. Grab one, take a seat and join in and abide! Bar's over there, mang..
It's Ohio, fuck it.
I'd like to be able to officiate some weddings in my own state
Quote from: Pappa Smurph on August 19, 2013, 03:21:31 PM
I'd like to be able to officiate some weddings in my own state
I know man, my comment was tongue in cheek.
That is a fuckin bummer man, what a buncha Nazis. Nothin changes...