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

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Raw Story

NJ bank won’t notarize American Atheist documents for ‘personal reasons’
By David Ferguson
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:13 EDT

The managing director of American Atheists, Inc. reported on Tuesday that she was refused notary service at a TD bank in Cranford, NJ because of her atheist affiliation.

In a post on Facebook, Amanda Knief wrote, “I was just refused service — because I am an atheist. It was embarrassing, humiliating, and it pissed me off.”

According to Knief, she and American Atheists president David Silverman were in the process of getting documents notarized by one of the bank’s notaries public when the woman asked them what the documents were for.

“The documents were charitable organizations registrations for American Atheists in several states,” wrote Knief. “So I told her what AA is about. She looked down, then looked at me and Dave Silverman and said she couldn’t sign the documents because of ‘personal reasons’ and went to find another notary who was eating his lunch to come do the authentications.”

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/26/nj-bank-wont-notarize-american-atheist-documents-for-personal-reasons/

[Hoyt]

1. Jesus. They should close any accounts and go to UPS Store for notary services.

[greyl]

2. David Ferguson wrote a misleading headline.

"Went to find another notary who was eating his lunch to come do the authentications" means the bank did not refuse to notarize the documents, a single employee did.

[Walk away]

3. And she should be fired. nt

[Android3.14]

13. No. In no uncertain terms. No.

No one is obligated to notarize your documents. You have no idea what was going on in the woman's head, and it would be vile if some person had the power to force anyone to sign something if their conscience was telling them not to sign it.
What you suggest is awful.

[Walk away]

14. Are you serious? She won't notarize a document because...

it is for Atheists and she shouldn't be fired? Does that mean if it were a Jewish organization or the NAACP she could deny them service and it would be just fine?

[starroute]

16. You're wrong -- notaries can not refuse to sign on grounds of race or religion

http://www.nationalnotary.org/bulletin/best_practices/how_do_i/refuse_a_notarization.html

While Notaries are prohibited from refusing a notarization without due cause, there are situations in which you are perfectly justified -- and even legally required -- to refuse to complete a notarization.

Among the valid and compelling reasons for which you can refuse a notarization outright: when you have a compelling or reasonable suspicion that the transaction is unlawful, dishonest or improper ...

Keep in mind that you cannot refuse a notarization based on the signer's race, nationality, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, politics, lifestyle, gender, sexual orientation or the contents of the document.

[NickB79]

18. Atheism isn't a religion, though

So, how do you argue that it is illegal to refuse notary service based on religion, when the person being refused is of no religion whatsoever?

[starroute]

32. It's still discrimination on the basis of relgiion

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with at least 15 employees, as well as employment agencies and unions, from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain of discrimination or participate in an EEO investigation. With respect to religion, Title VII prohibits:

* treating applicants or employees differently based on their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, and benefits (disparate treatment);

* subjecting employees to harassment because of their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – or because of the religious practices or beliefs of people with whom they associate (e.g., relatives, friends, etc.);

* denying a requested reasonable accommodation of an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – if an accommodation will not impose more than a de minimis cost or burden on business operations; and,

* retaliating against an applicant or employee who has engaged in protected activity, including participation (e.g., filing an EEO charge or testifying as a witness in someone else’s EEO matter), or opposition to religious discrimination (e.g., complaining to human resources department about alleged religious discrimination).

[cntrygrl]

35. I'm thinking she refused

to based on her own religious beliefs.

[FlaGranny]

40. I am a notary

and I do not ask what a document is about unless asked for help. If I am only notarizing a signature I ask for identification and have the person sign and then I notarize the signature. It is not my business what the document is. It is slightly different when there is an oath involved because I must ask a few questions. Even so, it is not my business to read the document. All I do is make sure the person understands that he is taking an oath as to his swearing the truth of the document. On rare occasions I may need to read the document to help the signer understand it. In any case I am not notarizing a document - I am notarizing a signature. My job is to verify the signer is who he says he is. It is not to substantiate any document or any item within the document. So shame on that notary.

[LibertyLover]

47. Agreed

This is something I have to explain all the time. I work in a large international organization which picks up the costs of my being a notary in DC on the understanding that I will not just notarize documents needed by it, but also our employees. So I have people coming to me for notarial services a lot. I am constantly having to explain that by notarizing something, I am not authenticating it. All I'm doing is confirming that you signed the document and I saw adequate proof that you were who you said you were. If they want it authenticated, I have a specific stamp that has them confirm the document in question is a true and correct copy and a place for their signature, which I then notarize. I'm not seeing anything in the Code that says I can refuse to notarize something. In fact we were told when I took the class that if the individual before us had satisfied the requirement of proving who they were, we could not refuse notarial service. I was never a notary in New Jersey, although I was one in New York and if I remember correctly, it was the same there as well. The NJ notary in question may have a legal right in New Jersey to refuse to notarize something, but I'd want to see the law on it.

[baldguy]

53. You can't be that stupid.

[CreekDog]

54. you're seriously trying to get us to believe that?

wow. wow.

nice try though. extra points for whomever is scoring offsite.

[Android3.14]

22. I still say no

I doubt that notary.org has the authority of law. They might be able to remove a notary's license, but they can't make him or her sign a document against his or her conscience.
I'm not suggesting the notary shouldn't face consequences. We always face the consequences of our decisions eventually.
Consider if a person brought a contract to a notary for a person's soul (I'm not trying to imply people have or haven't souls), would the state compel the notary, who conceivably could believe in a soul, to witness the document?
I doubt it.
Down with the Thought Police.

[SteveG]

28. Notary Publics are commissioned by the State

and therefor are agents of the State. They cannot refuse a legal request for their services. (at least in DE) any more than a Christian teacher can refuse to teach a Muslim or Jewish child assigned to their classroom.

[DeschutesRiver]

52. As FLGranny said, it is not the notary's job to vet the document. It is about the signature.

So the contents of the document are of no concern to the notary.

This notary refused to do the job of merely notarizing the signature and not because she suspected there was a problem with the signature. The document contents have zero to do with the notary's job. Zero. And no, this isn't a small technicality. So yes, firing her for non performance would be reasonable in this circumstance.

Rendering a judgment on the document was bizarre and completely inappropriate. Her job is to do with the signature, and if all was in order there, she had no reason to refuse to not notarize the signature as requested. If this notary doesn't understand that, someone better educate her ASAP.

[frylock]

23. it's her FUCKING job..

if you can't perform your duties, then find employment elsewhere.

[NutmegYankee]

38. She should be fired.

This trend to allow religious discrimination through refusal of service has got to end right fucking now. Either do your job or get fired! This is the same provision bigots and homophobes use to justify their mistreatment of minorities and gays.

[snooper2]

7. It's not like "raw story" is a real news organization

They just steal stories from other outlets, add some sensationalism and link to the real reporting--

Some news outlet should sue them for being a racket-

[rhett o rick]

17. Give us some examples of who you think are "real news organizations." nm

[snooper2]

42. VICE

oh yeah, and FYI-

Warren said she isn't runing

[rhett o rick]

46. Of course she said that. No one is running until they run. Is Clinton-Sachs running?

Who is running?

[snooper2]

49. No, she actually said, "not run for president in 2016"

Clinton-Sachs? bleh, I would rather have Warren...

I'm waiting for somebody to step up to the plate that isn't part of a dynasty----



But again, Warren isn't running- Just FYI, I hate to see people get their hopes up LOL


"Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said Wednesday that she intends to complete her first term in the U.S. Senate and not run for president in 2016.

"I'm not running for president, and I plan to serve out my term," Warren said in quotes that were first reported by The Boston Herald and Boston Globe. Warren's Senate office confirmed her comments."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/04/elizabeth-warren-presidential-race-2016-senate-term/3871349/

[cstanleytech]

4. Can the person who refused have their right to be a public notary revoked?

Surely there is a procedure for such a thing in this case.

[quakerboy]

5. stupidity

Notarizing something doesn't have anything to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the intent of it. Its just witnessing that people are who they say they are and are signing the documents of their own free will, as I understand it.

http://www.nationalnotary.org/resources_for_notaries/what_is_a_notary/
"And impartiality dictates that a Notary never refuse to serve a person due to race, nationality, religion, politics, sexual orientation or status as a non-customer."

TD should definitely be considering firing this employee, based on her not understanding her own job, and refusing to do her job.

That said, why would Amanda be embarrassed or humiliated? I can see pissed off, but when someone else is dumb, that doesn't reflect on me unless they are representing me in some way.

[PumpkinAle]

6. That notary has no business being a notary.......

While Notaries are prohibited from refusing a notarization without due cause, there are situations in which you are perfectly justified -- and even legally required -- to refuse to complete a notarization.

Among the valid and compelling reasons for which you can refuse a notarization outright: when you have a compelling or reasonable suspicion that the transaction is unlawful, dishonest or improper; when you're uncertain which notarial certificate to use or how to complete it; when you cannot effectively communicate with the signer; the signature to be notarized is yours or the document bears your name or signature; when the notarization would call into question your impartiality; or when you can't positively identify the signer.

In addition, a notarization should be stopped immediately if you suspect the signer is subject to undue influence or is incapable of understanding or acting responsibly.

If you refuse a notarization, note the circumstances in your journal. Indicating why the notarization was refused could help prevent a discrimination lawsuit.

Keep in mind that you cannot refuse a notarization based on the signer's race, nationality, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, politics, lifestyle, gender, sexual orientation or the contents of the document. It would also be considered improper to refuse notarial services based on the signer's status as a non-client or noncustomer.

http://www.nationalnotary.org/bulletin/best_practices/how_do_i/refuse_a_notarization.html

[NickB79]

19. Does atheism fall under any of that, though?

Keep in mind that you cannot refuse a notarization based on the signer's race, nationality, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, politics, lifestyle, gender, sexual orientation or the contents of the document. It would also be considered improper to refuse notarial services based on the signer's status as a non-client or noncustomer.

Atheism isn't a religion, but rather a lack of religious beliefs. Are atheists covered by any of that?

[1monster]

31. I think you are splitting hairs. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If one

can be discriminated against for not having a religion, it is a very slippy slope to being discriminated against for having the "wrong" religion.

I embarace no formal religion, don't call myself a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddist, Hindu, etc., yet do not consider myself an atheist. Yet I have no relion. I guess, under your reasoning, I am legally subject to discrimination?

[TorchTheWitch]

33. "religion" means religious beliefs/beliefs concerning religion

not a specific organized religion. Atheism is a belief concerning religion that god or gods don't exist. Plenty of people have religious beliefs that have nothing to do with any specific organized religion. So, yes, if this notary's reason to not notarize the document because she didn't agree with the organization's religious belief of not believing in any god or gods that the organization holds she did indeed refuse to notarize their document due to "religion". It cuts both ways as well... a notary can't refuse service because of the religious beliefs of the people wanting the notary service or because of the notary's own religious beliefs.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. Yes they are, are you honestly asking questions here?

[sakabatou]

8. The person who refused the group service should either be put on leave or fired.

[frazzled]

9. Pharmacists are allowed to do this to women by law

in many states.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/pharmacist-conscience-clauses-laws-and-information.aspx

[freshwest]

36. Yes they are, and it causes a great deal more harm than walking across the floor for another notary.

If a woman cannot get the morning after pill in some places she will have lost her chance to make a choice that will affect the rest of her life.

In my area the packets are placed on display with no one interfering to purchase it, just like any other OTC.

[AverageJoe90]

10. That's just stupid.

I can understand ethics conflicts in some exceptional cases, such as with racists(KKK, New Black Panthers.), but this isn't one of them. I'm no atheist, but what's so offensive about not believing in a god or gods?

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Roy Torcaso would have had a fit.

He was a Supreme Court litigant whose case made precedence. Atheists cannot be denied being made notaries due to the oath administered, thereby extending to all levels of government office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

[The Wizard]

12. Has the term

equal protection under the law just become a catch phrase without legal standing? With the current makeup of the Mediocre (Supreme) Court the law is like silly putty.

[sofa king]

15. "Failing to honor the poor"

A real Christian would be refusing to notarize corporate documents for THAT personal reason.

Has anyone heard of that happening, ever? Of course not. Because any Christian shallow enough to antagonize atheists isn't a real Christian.

[Politicub]

20. As long as it's an amorphous sincerely held belief

It's a-ok with the conservatives.

[seveneyes]

21. Maybe they should try Agnostic

It has no dogma.

[pragmatic_dem]

24. perfect, it is all going according to plan...

as citizens lose wealth, power and opportunities for education, jobs and advancement, they cling onto the only thing they have left - religious faith.

After all, rewards for the non-rich await for them in heaven.

It's a historical pattern with thousands of years of precedent.

The current generation is the weakest in influence since before WW2.

And because of that, people will rely on the intangibles of religious faith.

They have no other way to participate in society.

[AsahinaKimi]

25. I wonder if this will start

a precedent? The lawyers will have a field day with it, as they get richer off cases where someone sues someone for refusing service.

[pragmatic_dem]

27. you raise a very good point, as lower echelons fight amongst ourselves...

there are those who will profit from the resulting chaos. Police, lawyers, religious figures, etc. It's happening right now, of course.

From our view, it looks like a small erosion since the change is gradual over 10/20/30 years. But in the historical context the disparity between rich and poor (worldwide) is every bit as alarming and dangerous as global warming.

The rich are in denial about both phenomena. They believe they can just buy their way out of any problem of their own making.

[AsahinaKimi]

30. "They believe they can just buy their way out of any problem of their own making."

The Koch Brothers agree.

[muntrv]

26. Notarizing means the notary witnessed the signature, not endorsing the American Atheists, Inc.

[ck4829]

29. And then she probably turns around and says it's 'known' that Atheists don't donate to charity

[eggplant]

34. Yawn.

What a crappy "article". First, "the bank" didn't refuse anything. A bank employee who happens to be a notary refused "for personal reasons". Although we can all infer what those reasons might be, nowhere in the article does it say. What it *does* say is that the employee immediately went and found another notary to complete the transaction.

The customer is free to complain to the bank, and the bank can act on the complaint. But the service requested was provided, in a timely manner, without any real inconvenience to the customer.

Not everything is a landmark moment in discrimination. Some things are just stupid ass mistakes. This particular one doesn't rise to the level of freakout that Raw Story is trying to make it.

[astral]

39. +1

I dont get all the rabid reaction to this. When i was a notary i understood it to be completely voluntary and refusing to notarize something you are uncomfortable with is exact,y what you should do. I would have thought what does atheism have to to with what i would call seeking tax exempt status. If it doesnt make sense you dont have to do it. Maybe it varies from state to state? And the document was notarized anyway so there is no grounds to be complaining here.

[FlaGranny]

41. A document has no need to make sense

It is none of the notary's business. All you are doing is verifying the identify of the person. Notarization has nothing to do with the contents of the document - unless, and only unless, it is something unlawful. The document could say the signer saw the boogey man eating an ET in Disneyland for all I care. My job is to identify the signer and verify he is who he says he is and/or take his oath that the document is true. Every signer should be treated in an identical manner, no matter what YOU think of it, with the exception that you must refuse to notarize if you think the signer is coerced, or you think something illegal is going on.. Those things do not apply to this case.

[eggplant]

44. What you are saying is that the notary must make a judgement.

The notary must feel that the signer isn't being coerced and that the document relates to something unlawful. You say this yourself.

Thus, whether or not YOU as a notary see an issue here, IT'S A JUDGEMENT CALL. Sorry that they made a different judgment than you *might*, given the limited knowledge we all have about what was being notarized in a highly inflammatory article ("bank denies..."? um, no).

I find it interesting that all of the people screaming on this thread ignore two highly salient points. One, that the "bank" had nothing to do with this, and two, that the customer was provided the service they requested in a timely manner, regardless of who actually provided the service.

It didn't even sound like the notary was even that rude. They said that they had an unspecified personal problem, and found someone to replace themselves. If their objection was for any other "reason" than you are assuming, nobody would be batting an eye. ("I'm terribly sorry, I'm having PTSD flashbacks from 'Nam. Let me find you someone else to complete this.&quot

[kristopher]

45. +1

[Shankapotomus]

37. She is probably religious

and just didn't want her name on something charitable of Atheism. Not siding with her inner religious nuttery at all but, technically, she didn't refuse to sign because she was never compelled. Who knows? If pressed then and there by her employer she might have signed. Instead, she just went and found a notary that was mutually more convenient under the circumstance. Should she have been better prepared for such circumstances? Probably. She shouldn't have said anything about "personal reasons." She should have just said "so and so will be helping you with that today."

But, that all said, who becomes a notary public and then won't sign stuff? Research your job, for FSM sake.

[Lars28]

48. Misleading headline.

The bank didn't refuse to notarize the documents. One employee refused to do it, but she got another employee at the bank to do it instead.

[hughee99]

50. Yes, but if they write the headlike for that, no one will read the story and be outraged. n/t

[Lars28]

51. Yep, more page hits this way. :)

[treestar]

55. Religious people can be strange

She's only vouching for it being the person's signature.