NJ bank won’t notarize American Atheist documents for ‘personal reasons’

She can't verify that those are their signatures because they are atheist. For fuck's sake.

Oh well, her religious liberty to be a bigot is being protected

a notary notarizes, it is solely to guarantee that the people signing the documents IDed themselves reliably and signed in the notary's presence. Notarization has NOTHING to do with what the papers are about.

This notary is a dumb, fundie loon.

But according to the article, which could be wrong, in the state of NJ this is completely legal:



Is the article and Ms. Knief in error, or does NJ get an exemption?

but I'd be surprised if it said you could refuse service if you felt like it. I refused service when, for example, the dummies signed the frickin' papers at home and brought them to me to be notarized. Nope, nope, nope. It was so common that I told people on the phone to not sign the papers, I had to watch them sign or I would go to jail.

Her employer may, and should, have a lot to say about her idiocy. I'm assuming it's one of her duties, and her employer hopefully will fire her dumb ass. Anybody this dumb needs to be fired anyway. What's next, she can't serve that same lady at the teller's booth because that lady is an atheist????

And this case, IMHO, falls under refusing service for one of the reasons (religion, or lack thereof) that is federally regulated, not state regulated. One reason I wonder if that paragraph is correct is that it refers to a 'valid, legal' document. Whether a document is valid, legal, written on toilet paper, or is a total lie has nothing to do with notarization. Notarization has to do only with the validity of the signatures applied. The signers have to properly ID themselves, and they have to sign in the presence of the notary. Period. End of notarization. Notaries shouldn't even read the documents; they are none of the notary's business. You just look for the places that people need to sign, watch them sign, and apply your seal and signature.

You know, if this country gets so crazy that a notary won't notarize signatures on a document that she isn't even required to read, then it's all over. I'm leaving.

That's what we do as rational thinkers, right?

This guy's recent MO has been all about getting publicity and creating outrageous and provocative positions.

If it did happen as they describe, then it's unquestionably wrong.

But there are always two sides to any story like this, and I would like to hear the other.

Though I am more of a responder than a thread creator, I do like to post things like this when I see them. Usually someone has beat me to the punch.

Also, I want to point out that its not Silverman making the accusation but rather Amanda Knief.

I'm just really wary of Mr. Silverman right now. His recent antics have been, er, interesting. He apparently was sitting at the desk with Ms. Knief, if her report is accurate.

So that makes it even more interesting.

One from the Washington Times - which is traditionally a conservative paper, and the other from the Examiner, which is more of an editorial. These articles are all just a couple of hours old.

Nothing on the local paper's website that I can see - the Cranford Chronicle hosted as part of NJ.Com. They do have a lot of articles about Atheist Billboards which they are apparently riled up, but I think that's more NJ.Com than specific to Cranford.

Bank Contact information is here.

Bryant

I'm interested to see if anyone interviews someone from the bank or if the bank releases a statement.

Thanks for the info. We shall see.

Come look at the oppression inherent in the system! This is what I've been going on about!

That said, Strawman is strawman.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here and haven't seen you going on about anything, but look forward to your further input.

That said, props for a Monty Python reference.

I'm an Atheist, and I would be pissed not embarrassed at all. I would be embarrassed for the "believers" that bring their shit religion to work with them.

but more that she was singled out for this kind of treatment. Which depending on your personality could be pretty embarrassing; some people don't like being the center of attention in that way.

And, of course, she shouldn't have been singled out in this way - the person who did it should be fired.

Bryant

refuse service for personal reasons; it does allow you to refuse service to people who have no or inadequate ID, or to the dummies who bring the docs in already signed, because you, the notary, would be breaking the law if you notarized in such a situation.

Theoretically, I suppose any of us could refuse service to anyone in the performance of our jobs, and our employers would have to make the determination if we had a rational reason to do so. In this case, it seems that the employee wants the freedom to reject anyone not to her religious liking, which is NOT what is meant legally by freedom of religion. The atheist lady, though, could have a case for federal religious discrimination against the bank for treating her like this.

Can you imagine the uproar if she refused service because she didn't like black people? Or she didn't want to deal with a gay couple buying a house together? It's ridiculous.

without partiality; and I should expect such impartial performance would generally be expected of public officials in any state; the standards of national organizations might carry some weight, were this matter to land in court, and perhaps someone interested in the matter will find impartiality listed as an expected standard by some national notary organization, though I myself am too lazy to scan such documents in search of it

If one can demonstrate impartiality as an expected legal standard for notaries (as I strongly suspect one can), it is still not absolutely clear to me how the matter would resolve in court, since (for example) the notary in question might make some argument as "I was unable to maintain impartiality here and so sought another notary" -- and that may not always be a specious argument: notaries are sometimes advised, say, not to notarize documents of family members, on the grounds that their impartiality might be questionable; and one can imagine other circumstances in which a notary might question his/her own ability to perform the act impartially and hence might appropriately direct the requester to another notary

I've never discussed document contents with a notary: the notary just adds (by stamp) legally-required boiler-plate for the notarization, embosses the document with a notary seal, then signs the stamp. But I don't know what NJ law requires

I can't really understand why a notary would act as reported here, and it seems silly to me. But the details are sketchy, and so far the only ordinary media source is the Washington Times, which just reports the AA version, without further investigative effort, so I won't pretend to know much about the story, other than what AA says happened

You can't understand why a bakery wouldn't want to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple? Why a restaurant wouldn't want to serve blacks? Why a club wouldn't accept Jews as members?

I don't understand why anyone would do that, since it seems a pointless waste of time to me -- but folk seem to do it anyway

There now...was that so hard to get your brain around? Doesn't even require a Google search.

also that notaries, as quasi-govt officials, must follow federal laws pertaining to discrimination. I could be wrong, of course, since I'm not a lawyer.

As far as 'impartiality,' notaries don't advise or make decisions for or about those whose signatures she is witnessing. It's a mechanical act, bound by certain requirements (signers must ID themselves properly, they must sign in front of the notary) and, as you noted, the notary herself cannot notarize any document in which she has an interest (she can't notarize her own signature; can't notarize docs in which she has a financial or other direct interest, etc.) but AFAIK, none of these apply. It looks like the notary just didn't want to help an atheist. Lawsuit time.

she is saying that she was unfamiliar with what had to be done with these particular documents and had told them she was going to get someone else who was familiar with it.

Which she did.

I don't know who is telling the truth here or whether it was just a general misunderstanding, but I think jumping to "lawsuit time" might not be the right conclusion.

notary.

The bank's managers sound on the ball, if what you say is true. No one wants a discrimination suit, that's for sure. Either the notary did not object to the atheist customer, or the bank took her aside and told her to straighten the f**k up if she wanted to keep her job. And another notary 'helped' her through the process. Either way, notice was served that there would be no deciding which customers get service and which don't -- all are welcome.

The truth may or may not come it, but Mr. Silverman has been generating a lot of publicity for himself lately, and this makes me a bit skeptical.

in favor of Hobbie Lobby, this will be par for the course. religious objection will be acceptable reason for denial of service.

http://cdn.nationalnotary.org/resources_for_notaries/Notary_Code.pdf

The bank won't risk a lawsuit over this.

http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2014/03/atheist_group_says_it_was_denied_by_td_bank_notary_because_of_religion.html

I've been a notary.

1. Notarizing a signature is notarizing a signature. You don't need to know Jack about the paperwork.

2. If that really were the case why didn't she say that? Why the "personal reasons"?

the list is not exhaustive, so the notary might have had to examine more than one part of the document: if the notary had little experience, confusion might be possible

Try again.

Try again.

The bank does have a financial motive for not admitting that part of the conversation. Given that one side has a financial motive for shading the truth and the other has less of one, I guess I tend to think that Knief's story seems more plausible.

But absent a third party coming forward we'll likely never know.

Bryant

I just don't see it.

Bryant

I'm sure she and Silverman thought going to CPAC was a good political move as well.

If that is the case, why wouldn't she simply say "I am not familiar with this type of document. Let me get someone who can do this for you"? That would be so hard? No, instead, she said "I can't for personal reasons." Which makes NO sense if it was just confusion over the documents. Or did she mean "I'm stupid" by "personal reasons"?

She said she wouldn't do it for "personal reasons." That isn't even denied by the bank. Why would she say "personal reasons" when she meant "I don't know what I'm supposed to do with documents of this type."

I believe you just declared them "authoritarian fundamentalists" even though there are conflicting stories.

You are certainly free to argue against that impression of mine if you so choose

It is so much more rational to cry persecution.

And one of the main reasons god is superfluous.

of weighing natural occurrences, I'd say that was a pretty ignorant statement.

but you believe the bank's PR boilerplate can't possibly be nothing more than ass-covering? Critical thinking apparently only runs one way in your family.

The guy's M.O. is professional martyr. For recreation, though, he attends CPAC.

She wasn't refused service..another bank employee did the work

than look for the truth of the matter.

Even if true that she said she had "personal reasons" (and only one person claims that) we don't know what those personal reasons may have been and no one was seriously inconvenienced or embarrassed.

Once again-- if you have no case, make enough noise and no one will notice.

after finding out it was a Catholic organization, or a Jewish organization, or a women's rights organization, that would be posted here and people wouldn't say that the atheist notary was out of line?

Yeah, sell that somewhere else.

which hasn't been done here.

And even if one employee excuses him- or herself for "discriminatory reasons" (if you can prove that) but the organization doesn't discriminate and just does its job-- why make a big deal over it when no one is hurt?

Now, if an employee stands on the desk and loudly proclaims that evil sits before him and must be expunged-- you have a case. But only if the employer does nothing about it.

And their waitress says " I'm sorry, I don't serve blacks, but if you'll wait a minute, I'll get you another server who does", is that "no harm, no foul" to you? Nothing wrong with her or the restaurant, since no one was hurt?

and what was said. We really don't know it happened that way. And if she had a problem, we have no evidence it had anything to do with atheism.

As far as your example goes, more likely nothing would be said, but a new waitress would magically appear. Still wrong, but what's the recourse? Fire here? Have long talk with her? We're back to what responsibility does a business have for an employee's behavior.

More likely, and perhaps more troubling, would be a customer with a disability or other problem that the first waitress can't deal with. Should she grit her teeth or get another waitress?

Why aren't you taking that attitude with the private school and the little girl? Double standard? That can't be it, can it?

it's school policy, not a random employee's bad attitude.

So, no, it's not a double standard.

This is not about what actually happened, it's about your hypothetical:

even if one employee excuses him- or herself for "discriminatory reasons" (if you can prove that) but the organization doesn't discriminate and just does its job-- why make a big deal over it when no one is hurt?

And it's clear from your response that if you owned the restaurant, you would wonder about what to do with an employee who was refusing to wait on tables with black people at them, instead of just firing them. And that you're unable to put yourself in the position of the people being discriminated against. And that you have no clue about the responsibility of a business for how its employees behave and treat customers. Which makes me wonder what you're doing on a progressive web site in the first place.

to fire someone?

My first duty would be to defuse the situation and make it right. Exactly how to do that would depend on many factors not mentioned.

And you think you would do better, even though you have no idea what the reaction of the customers was? You don't know if the customers are my in-laws or otherwise regular customers, came in for the first time, whether the waitress was attacked by a black person the night before, or any other marginal condition that would affect the situation.

One problem with atheists is that they have little practical experience preaching.

if you're running a restaurant and one of your waitresses was refusing to serve black people, and was telling them that she was refusing to serve them because they were black, she should be fired. Period. Regardless of how the customers reacted, and regardless of whether they're related to you. Aside for the fact that she'd be putting you in violation of federal law, why would you want such a person representing your business to the public in any way? If I saw such a thing going on in a restaurant I was in, I'd leave and never come back, tell all my friends never to go there, and post about exactly what happened on every review site I could find.

But you go right on being an apologist for that kind of behavior, if it makes you feel superior.

... “In New Jersey, notaries are not required to abide by any code of conduct or ethics that prevents them from refusing service to people based on ‘personal reasons,’” explained Knief ... The organization’s legal team is drafting proposed legislation to keep this kind of discrimination from happening again. Update, 9:17 p.m. EST, March 27: ... American Atheists spokesperson Dave Muscato .. said that while Knief is preparing legislation regarding discrimination by notary publics, she is not doing so on behalf of American Atheists. He also noted that the Notary Public’s Code of Professional Responsibility, while not legally binding, forbids notaries from discriminating based on religious beliefs ...
from the article linked by the OP

... New Jersey has an extremely strong law against discrimination, according to ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas, which not only protects against discrimination toward someone who follows a certain religion, but also someone who does not follow one. “This person’s job is to notarize documents. If she denied providing that service because she personally disliked the fact that this group did not ascribe to her religion, or religion in general, that would be against the law,” Barocas said ...
TD Bank notary in Cranford accused of denying service to atheist organization
By Tom Wright-Piersanti / The Star-Ledger
March 26, 2014 at 5:10 PM
updated March 27, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Kneif says that the notary claimed she could do it for "personal reasons." Kneif DID NOT claim that she said she couldn't do it because it was for an atheist organization but the fact that the "personal reasons" declaration came right after she learned it was an atheist organization makes it pretty clear.

Your second article only says that they can't discriminate for religious reasons. Which DOES NOT provide tension with what Kneif said. Kneif said that they can decline for "personal reasons" which, since it is really vague, could include unstated religious reasons. They want to eliminate that so people can't hide their bigotry.

And, hey, nice job victim shaming, though. That's some classy shit.