Quote:So do the rights of <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/02/christian-bakers-fined-135000-for-refusing-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbians.html?intcmp=latestnews'>this couple</a> matter? Should they, via their private business be forced to do something that is against their belief? Is it fair to fine them $135,000 and award it to the gay couple because of the "emotional suffering" the gay couple supposedly experienced?
Absolutely not. Its a tragedy that the government has that kind of power.
Quote:So, a person of faith shouldn't be permitted to have a government job?
Really into the whole rights thing, aren't you? Encouraging discrimination in hiring practices shows a real high level of tolerance.
That's not what he said.
Any employee has the right to refuse to do their job, but an employer has the right to terminate that employee if the task in question is legal. Especially if it's a government job.
Quote:So, a person of faith shouldn't be permitted to have a government job?
Really into the whole rights thing, aren't you? Encouraging discrimination in hiring practices shows a real high level of tolerance.
Where did I say any of that? lol
If a person doesn't want to perform a key function of a job, then they should be removed from that position. Not a hard concept to grasp, and not specific to "people of faith" at all.
So, my brother lives in a home that was built before it was surrounded by golf courses and homes built with the intention of being part of a HOA and everything that goes with that. Because my brother's house was there before all of that he is exempt from paying into and adhering to the HOA rules. In other words, he was grandfathered in.
This is what I meant when I said the folks we're discussing shouldn't lose their jobs due to a law that wasn't in effect when they started their job and now requires a specific duty that goes against their obvious belief. Thus being grandfathered in. Now if someone started the job after the ruling THEN tried to get out of doing that specific function due to their belief then yes, they should lose it or quit. They were hired knowing that was part of the job description. Someone who doesn't agree with abortion isn't going to apply to an abortion clinic because they know what it entails. The people we're talking about were hired before this law added to the job description something they morally don't believe in.
And by the way, I personally don't care who marries whom. I don't agree with it as a Christian but I'm not going to tell someone they can't marry someone else. What people do is their decision. I'm just tired of being considered a bigot because I have a difference of opinion. I don't hate anyone. Hate and a difference of opinion are two totally different things though these days it's often considered to be one and the same.
Quote:So, my brother lives in a home that was built before it was surrounded by golf courses and homes built with the intention of being part of a HOA and everything that goes with that. Because my brother's house was there before all of that he is exempt from paying into and adhering to the HOA rules. In other words, he was grandfathered in.
This is what I meant when I said the folks we're discussing shouldn't lose their jobs due to a law that wasn't in effect when they started their job and now requires a specific duty that goes against their obvious belief. Thus being grandfathered in. Now if someone started the job after the ruling THEN tried to get out of doing that specific function due to their belief then yes, they should lose it or quit. They were hired knowing that was part of the job description. Someone who doesn't agree with abortion isn't going to apply to an abortion clinic because they know what it entails. The people we're talking about were hired before this law added to the job description something they morally don't believe in.
And by the way, I personally don't care who marries whom. I don't agree with it as a Christian but I'm not going to tell someone they can't marry someone else. What people do is their decision. I'm just tired of being considered a bigot because I have a difference of opinion. I don't hate anyone. Hate and a difference of opinion are two totally different things though these days it's often considered to be one and the same.
Ownership and employment are very different things.
Quote:So, my brother lives in a home that was built before it was surrounded by golf courses and homes built with the intention of being part of a HOA and everything that goes with that. Because my brother's house was there before all of that he is exempt from paying into and adhering to the HOA rules. In other words, he was grandfathered in.
This is what I meant when I said the folks we're discussing shouldn't lose their jobs due to a law that wasn't in effect when they started their job and now requires a specific duty that goes against their obvious belief. Thus being grandfathered in. Now if someone started the job after the ruling THEN tried to get out of doing that specific function due to their belief then yes, they should lose it or quit. They were hired knowing that was part of the job description. Someone who doesn't agree with abortion isn't going to apply to an abortion clinic because they know what it entails. The people we're talking about were hired before this law added to the job description something they morally don't believe in.
And by the way, I personally don't care who marries whom. I don't agree with it as a Christian but I'm not going to tell someone they can't marry someone else. What people do is their decision. I'm just tired of being considered a bigot because I have a difference of opinion. I don't hate anyone. Hate and a difference of opinion are two totally different things though these days it's often considered to be one and the same.
Doesn't make you a bigot. Throwing around rhetoric about the "gay mafia" makes me question whether or not someone's inner bigot is showing, but disagreeing with the practice is your right.
That said, I've been in jobs before where the job description changed. The options presented to me in the private sector were "do it" or "get lost". In one instance, I chose to get lost because I considered the new expectation to be unethical, and I wasn't willing to do it based upon my own morals. I don't see why the rules should be any different for a county clerk issuing marriage licenses, regardless of reason. The Supreme Court has said that states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The clerk's job is to issue those licenses. If a clerk chooses not to issue those licenses for any reason, religious or not, they should resign or be fired for failure to perform essential job duties. It really is that cut and dry. If you're not willing to do your job, stop wasting payroll and let someone who is willing to do it take over.
Quote:Doesn't make you a bigot. Throwing around rhetoric about the "gay mafia" makes me question whether or not someone's inner bigot is showing, but disagreeing with the practice is your right.
That said, I've been in jobs before where the job description changed. The options presented to me in the private sector were "do it" or "get lost". In one instance, I chose to get lost because I considered the new expectation to be unethical, and I wasn't willing to do it based upon my own morals. I don't see why the rules should be any different for a county clerk issuing marriage licenses, regardless of reason. The Supreme Court has said that states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The clerk's job is to issue those licenses. If a clerk chooses not to issue those licenses for any reason, religious or not, they should resign or be fired for failure to perform essential job duties. It really is that cut and dry. If you're not willing to do your job, stop wasting payroll and let someone who is willing to do it take over.
Yep. No different than a Clerk who has been in office since 1964. I doubt there are any, but apparently some on here would be ok with the Clerk denying services to "colored people" because, well that's the way it was always done.
I'd love to see the reaction of some on here if a government official denied them service because to the official it just didn't seem right. I think we'd see a three page post by FBT and flsprtsgod about the government being uppity and all.
Quote:Yep. No different than a Clerk who has been in office since 1964. I doubt there are any, but apparently some on here would be ok with the Clerk denying services to "colored people" because, well that's the way it was always done.
I'd love to see the reaction of some on here if a government official denied them service because to the official it just didn't seem right. I think we'd see a three page post by FBT and flsprtsgod about the government being uppity and all.
You obviously have zero understanding of my position. It's outlined above if you'd care to educate yourself instead of popping off and looking like a fool.
Quote:Doesn't make you a bigot. Throwing around rhetoric about the "gay mafia" makes me question whether or not someone's inner bigot is showing, but disagreeing with the practice is your right.
That said, I've been in jobs before where the job description changed. The options presented to me in the private sector were "do it" or "get lost". In one instance, I chose to get lost because I considered the new expectation to be unethical, and I wasn't willing to do it based upon my own morals. I don't see why the rules should be any different for a county clerk issuing marriage licenses, regardless of reason. The Supreme Court has said that states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The clerk's job is to issue those licenses. If a clerk chooses not to issue those licenses for any reason, religious or not, they should resign or be fired for failure to perform essential job duties. It really is that cut and dry. If you're not willing to do your job, stop wasting payroll and let someone who is willing to do it take over.
I know I've never used those words but it does seem sometimes there is a group of people who have made it their personal mission to push the gay...... issue for lack of better words, until it suffocates everyone. But there are people like that in every group of folks who want to be heard- Christians included.
I guess I'm of the thought that if you change the rules in a scenario like this then you have to give consideration to those who were employed before said rule change and may object based on moral/religious grounds. Maybe a different job within the same office or something. But that's me. I don't like seeing people get shafted for any reason- at all. I'm one of those who truly wishes we could all just get along. I'm all for basic human rights and equality, I just really and truly hate that people are losing jobs over this because of their religious beliefs.
But like you said, if people don't want to do it then they need to go and let those who will have a job.
Quote:Ownership and employment are very different things.
Not to the people losing their jobs.
Quote:I'm so glad my family doesn't associate with people that liken gay marriage to 9/11. I'd keep my son FAR away from such an individual.
The fact is, people are becoming more open minded and accepting. The country is evolving, people are evolving. It's happening, and will continue to happen, whether you like it or not. If some want to sulk in their own pool of misery, that's their prerogative. The rest of society is moving on.
Okay, I'm not going to weigh in on gay marriage; I just want to discuss a contradiction here.
Evolution, in essence, means that a species or society has become stronger and more equipped to survive for a longer period of time. Wouldn't homosexuality mean that our species is trending toward less survivability because we have fewer breeding adults and therefore less genetic diversity? Or would evolution dictate that homosexuals are weaker/less equipped individuals who are therefore being eliminated via natural selection without breeding?
All I'm saying is that evolution is not a concept that can be applied with fidelity to the gay marriage ruling.
As a huge non sequitir, kudos to Bush and Rubio for keeping their opinions on the ruling politically founded rather than taking the rope to argue a social issue.
Quote:You obviously have zero understanding of my position. It's outlined above if you'd care to educate yourself instead of popping off and looking like a fool.
You've looked like a fool quite often with your knee-jerk canned responses regarding that big, mean old government. If some government Clerk failed to please you in some capacity you'd be posting pity Foxisms about the pending fall of the republic.
Just because you make a common sense, no other choice stance that someone should be fired for refusing to do their job doesn't mean it's not amusing to see the irony here.
Now, go back to worrying about the coming collapse of capitalism and the world's climate-change conspiracy.
Quote:You've looked like a fool quite often with your knee-jerk canned responses regarding that big, mean old government. If some government Clerk failed to please you in some capacity you'd be posting pity Foxisms about the pending fall of the republic.
Just because you make a common sense, no other choice stance that someone should be fired for refusing to do their job doesn't mean it's not amusing to see the irony here.
Now, go back to worrying about the coming collapse of capitalism and the world's climate-change conspiracy.
Wow, doubling down I see.
Quote:I know I've never used those words but it does seem sometimes there is a group of people who have made it their personal mission to push the gay...... issue for lack of better words, until it suffocates everyone. But there are people like that in every group of folks who want to be heard- Christians included.
I guess I'm of the thought that if you change the rules in a scenario like this then you have to give consideration to those who were employed before said rule change and may object based on moral/religious grounds. Maybe a different job within the same office or something. But that's me. I don't like seeing people get shafted for any reason- at all. I'm one of those who truly wishes we could all just get along. I'm all for basic human rights and equality, I just really and truly hate that people are losing jobs over this because of their religious beliefs.
But like you said, if people don't want to do it then they need to go and let those who will have a job.
How dare "those people" push for equal rights. I mean, who do they think they are! Did blacks getting the right to be full citizens, the vote, etc., "suffocate everyone"?
People seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter what your moral/religious grounds are. I don't need to know yours you don't need to know mine. Just follow the law and treat people decently. How hard is that?
Quote:Wow, doubling down I see.
Hey, if it's there it's there.
Quote:Okay, I'm not going to weigh in on gay marriage; I just want to discuss a contradiction here.
Evolution, in essence, means that a species or society has become stronger and more equipped to survive for a longer period of time. Wouldn't homosexuality mean that our species is trending toward less survivability because we have fewer breeding adults and therefore less genetic diversity? Or would evolution dictate that homosexuals are weaker/less equipped individuals who are therefore being eliminated via natural selection without breeding?
All I'm saying is that evolution is not a concept that can be applied with fidelity to the gay marriage ruling.
As a huge non sequitir, kudos to Bush and Rubio for keeping their opinions on the ruling politically founded rather than taking the rope to argue a social issue.
Your point about evolution would have a point if it weren't for the fact that so few people are gay.
Which is another reason why this is so silly - so much uproar about so few people.
Quote:Your point about evolution would have a point if it weren't for the fact that so few people are gay.
Which is another reason why this is so silly - so much uproar about so few people.
Mostly was a semantic issue. Boy, you're on a reply spree, haha.
I would also like to touch on a point that really confuses me greatly, that being the parallel people keep drawing between the black civil rights movement and the current homosexual one.
While both groups are vying for some form of equal rights, I feel it does a disservice to the civil rights movement to equate it with the gay marriage movement. Black Americans were treated differently because of something they are; namely, genetically, they were born black and nothing could ever change that. A unilateral decision was made that because of their birth, they were fundamentally inferior in every capacity and therefore unworthy of equal treatment with a superior race.
As far as I can tell, it has been a very long time at the least that any gay individual was barred access to a restaurant, made to go to an entirely different school, forced to live in a poor area of town, or forced to give up their seat on a bus to a white individual. In fact, most of those things have NEVER happened.
The treatment of gay individuals seems like it's beeb pretty good overall actually by comparison, save the one area of marriage. And I feel that they should be allowed to do so, given our Constitution.
However, I'm tired of comparisons to the struggles black Americans faced. It's ridiculous. There are still black churches being burned for Heaven's sake.
Quote:Hey, if it's there it's there.
You really should share whatever you were smoking yesterday, looks like it was good stuff. Made you a bit hostile though.
Quote:How dare "those people" push for equal rights. I mean, who do they think they are! Did blacks getting the right to be full citizens, the vote, etc., "suffocate everyone"?
People seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter what your moral/religious grounds are. I don't need to know yours you don't need to know mine. Just follow the law and treat people decently. How hard is that?
I seem to recall saying I'm all for equal rights. Check the attitude at the door.
Quote:I seem to recall saying I'm all for equal rights. Check the attitude at the door.
You're really trying to have it both ways, aren't you? Perhaps you should run for office.