|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 02 2015 05:35 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:There is a long list of sins in the world, issuing a gay marriage license is on the low end. Depends on who you ask - "Blasphemy has been condemned as a serious, or even the most serious, sin by the major creeds and Church theologians" (Wikipedia/Blasphemy) Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 05:35 JinDesu wrote:If they refused on basis of religious beliefs, then yeah - they would be relieved of their position. ...and this would likely lead to a huge a religious discrimination lawsuit.
Yeah, just as the gay marriage thing has done. Main difference is this one has already been battled in court, and now this clerk is going against the court order.
|
On September 02 2015 05:35 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 05:32 farvacola wrote:On September 02 2015 05:23 Buckyman wrote:
Hmm... then I'd like to have your evaluation of a couple of other, hypothetical circumstances:
1) A state education agency requires all science teachers to tell their class that there is no God in the first lesson of each year. Some teachers refuse to do so.
2) A postal-system worker refuses to print the initial run of stamps with an image of Prophet Muhammad on them. When the stamps eventually do get printed, many post office employees refuse to sell them.
1. Curriculum standards and requirements vary state by state, but in all likelihood, the teachers' collective bargaining agreement would include language that either 1) affixes penalties for a failure to conform with curriculum requirements or 2) immunizes teachers from reprimand relative to ideological disagreements with curriculum. 2. Again, this is going to involve a collective bargaining agreement. However, unlike teachers, postal workers perform work less susceptible to an individual's personal views, and it is almost certain that all detractors would be simply be reprimanded and then fired if they continue to fail to perform their duties. The only issue would be if the postal workers refused to sell the stamps on the basis of fear of retribution/attack from terrorists, i.e. Charlie Hebdo. If they refused on basis of religious beliefs, then yeah - they would be relieved of their position.
Lets not even touch on the fact that only assholes are going to buy the Prophet Muhammad Stamps. Like literally people who live to piss annoy others. No Muslim is going to by the blasphemy stamps.
|
On September 02 2015 05:35 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:There is a long list of sins in the world, issuing a gay marriage license is on the low end. Depends on who you ask - "Blasphemy has been condemned as a serious, or even the most serious, sin by the major creeds and Church theologians" (Wikipedia/Blasphemy) Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 05:35 JinDesu wrote:If they refused on basis of religious beliefs, then yeah - they would be relieved of their position. ...and this would likely lead to a huge a religious discrimination lawsuit.
It is not discrimination, as the post office is not treating those workers differently from other workers of other religions.
|
United States43673 Posts
Whether or not there is a God is something a science teacher has absolutely no educational opinion on. That's for philosophy/religion classes. Might as well have science teachers avow that there are no unicorns. A science teacher can have any opinion in their free time but when they're on school time they're paid to teach science and science doesn't care one way or the other.
|
On September 02 2015 05:38 Acrofales wrote:
1) Why is the government not being secular? Fairly certain forcing someone to admit there is no God goes against their second amendment right.
There is some history of state education requirements not being secular. However, I've inverted the situation in this particular example.
On September 02 2015 05:44 JinDesu wrote:
It is not discrimination, as the post office is not treating those workers differently from other workers of other religions.
Your argument, in that form, seems to be of the same form as "the courts are treating homosexuals as though they were heterosexual". Could you please give a more detailed explanation?
|
So you are saying that a court clerk should be able to deny government services for any reason that might object to their religion? Like if their religion stated that blacks and whites shouldn't be able to marry? And allowing them to do so would be blasphemy, so no marriage license.
|
Just for the record.
This is what puzzles europeans about americans and makes many seem so anti-american.
On one side (which the media isn't talking about enough here) your still one of the by far most progressive societies there is (go 'murrica).
On the other side, your debating braindead shit just because many of you like to hug god.
As for the issue. Kwark was perfect on it.
You believing is fine, you should not be insulted or discriminated because of it, but if your believe is going against basic rights or "common" knowledge - get out.
|
On September 02 2015 05:57 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 05:38 Acrofales wrote:
1) Why is the government not being secular? Fairly certain forcing someone to admit there is no God goes against their second amendment right. There is some history of state education requirements not being secular. However, I've inverted the situation in this particular example. Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 05:44 JinDesu wrote:
It is not discrimination, as the post office is not treating those workers differently from other workers of other religions. Your argument, in that form, seems to be of the same form as "the courts are treating homosexuals as though they were heterosexual". Could you please give a more detailed explanation?
I'm confused by your statement of my argument, but what I am saying is that discrimination implies one group of people are treated differently than others. In the case of the marriage license, the gay couple is being discriminated against by not being allowed to receive a marriage certificate. On the other hand, if the clerk says no one gets to have a marriage certificate - yes, she is not discriminating at that point. She is, however, not doing her job.
As far as the argument of religious discrimination on the clerk's beliefs, that is not a solid argument as no marriage county clerk is being treated differently. They all have to issue marriage licenses regardless of their religious inclination.
What you are looking for is religious persecution, i.e. the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs or affiliations or lack thereof. In this case, she is believing that she is being mistreated as a response of her religious belief - which is a more reasonable argument to make, but one that I believe is still ineffective as she is imposing her religious beliefs onto the gay couple in this case.
(Just in case it's not clear, religious discrimination implies treatment difference based on religion, while religious persecution implies an attack upon the religious beliefs. Here, she's not treated differently, but she believes her religious beliefs are attacked by the court ruling.)
|
We are as progressive as the Bible Belt lets us be. Sadly, any time we have an issue like this, they are the last ones to hold out on their rights to enforce their religion on others.
And Florida. Without Disney, it would just be the state with “those people”.
Edit: Persecution as cited above, is not people making you "feel bad" about you religion every once and a while.
|
Maybe she should get a new job which doesn't require her to violate her religious beliefs instead of not doing her job.
If your job requirements are so contrary to your personal beliefs or whatever, it's time for a new job.
|
On September 02 2015 06:01 Plansix wrote:
So you are saying that a court clerk should be able to deny government services for any reason that might object to their religion? Like if their religion stated that blacks and whites shouldn't be able to marry? And allowing them to do so would be blasphemy, so no marriage license.
I personally think there is a very narrow personal right to not be required by the government to make or certify a statement that one's religion strictly forbids one to make. I honestly do not know the best way to reconcile that with the recent supreme court ruling. I would argue in favor of attempting to satisfy both rights with minimum overall inconvenience, in this case assigning the gay couple to a different clerk rather than firing and replacing the clerk, but I could be persuaded otherwise.
In other words, I think a recusal is appropriate but a firing is not.
|
On September 02 2015 06:32 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 06:01 Plansix wrote:
So you are saying that a court clerk should be able to deny government services for any reason that might object to their religion? Like if their religion stated that blacks and whites shouldn't be able to marry? And allowing them to do so would be blasphemy, so no marriage license. I personally think there is a very narrow personal right to not be required by the government to make or certify a statement that one's religion strictly forbids one to make. I honestly do not know the best way to reconcile that with the recent supreme court ruling. I would argue in favor of attempting to satisfy both rights with minimum overall inconvenience, in this case assigning the gay couple to a different clerk rather than firing and replacing the clerk, but I could be persuaded otherwise. In other words, I think a recusal is appropriate but a firing is not.
It sounds like this is not just a clerk tho. This is the head of whatever it is and ultimately no marriage certificate can be given out without her approval. Hence the current issue.
If it is a normal clerk then I agree just let another do it who does not have religious objections (if they all have objections then 1 is unlucky and has to do it anyway)
|
On September 02 2015 06:32 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 06:01 Plansix wrote:
So you are saying that a court clerk should be able to deny government services for any reason that might object to their religion? Like if their religion stated that blacks and whites shouldn't be able to marry? And allowing them to do so would be blasphemy, so no marriage license. I personally think there is a very narrow personal right to not be required by the government to make or certify a statement that one's religion strictly forbids one to make. I honestly do not know the best way to reconcile that with the recent supreme court ruling. I would argue in favor of attempting to satisfy both rights with minimum overall inconvenience, in this case assigning the gay couple to a different clerk rather than firing and replacing the clerk, but I could be persuaded otherwise. In other words, I think a recusal is appropriate but a firing is not.
You do realize that her entire office is refusing to issue the licenses? Like all her employees. This isn't a case of bowing out or having someone else do it. She is using her office to deny them the right to marry even though she has been ordered to do so.
|
On September 02 2015 06:32 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 06:01 Plansix wrote:
So you are saying that a court clerk should be able to deny government services for any reason that might object to their religion? Like if their religion stated that blacks and whites shouldn't be able to marry? And allowing them to do so would be blasphemy, so no marriage license. I personally think there is a very narrow personal right to not be required by the government to make or certify a statement that one's religion strictly forbids one to make. I honestly do not know the best way to reconcile that with the recent supreme court ruling. I would argue in favor of attempting to satisfy both rights with minimum overall inconvenience, in this case assigning the gay couple to a different clerk rather than firing and replacing the clerk, but I could be persuaded otherwise. In other words, I think a recusal is appropriate but a firing is not.
What if, like in this case, literally every single one is denying to do so? That's a form of discrimination. You can't put that extra effort onto the couples side even if you wanted to solve it like this or else they're just going to get redirected for years...
|
On September 02 2015 06:40 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 06:32 Buckyman wrote:On September 02 2015 06:01 Plansix wrote:
So you are saying that a court clerk should be able to deny government services for any reason that might object to their religion? Like if their religion stated that blacks and whites shouldn't be able to marry? And allowing them to do so would be blasphemy, so no marriage license. I personally think there is a very narrow personal right to not be required by the government to make or certify a statement that one's religion strictly forbids one to make. I honestly do not know the best way to reconcile that with the recent supreme court ruling. I would argue in favor of attempting to satisfy both rights with minimum overall inconvenience, in this case assigning the gay couple to a different clerk rather than firing and replacing the clerk, but I could be persuaded otherwise. In other words, I think a recusal is appropriate but a firing is not. What if, like in this case, literally every single one is denying to do so? That's a form of discrimination. You can't put that extra effort onto the couples side even if you wanted to solve it like this or else they're just going to get redirected for years...
Also the clerk in the next country could deny them for the same reason. And so on forever.
|
On September 02 2015 06:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 06:40 Toadesstern wrote:On September 02 2015 06:32 Buckyman wrote:On September 02 2015 06:01 Plansix wrote:
So you are saying that a court clerk should be able to deny government services for any reason that might object to their religion? Like if their religion stated that blacks and whites shouldn't be able to marry? And allowing them to do so would be blasphemy, so no marriage license. I personally think there is a very narrow personal right to not be required by the government to make or certify a statement that one's religion strictly forbids one to make. I honestly do not know the best way to reconcile that with the recent supreme court ruling. I would argue in favor of attempting to satisfy both rights with minimum overall inconvenience, in this case assigning the gay couple to a different clerk rather than firing and replacing the clerk, but I could be persuaded otherwise. In other words, I think a recusal is appropriate but a firing is not. What if, like in this case, literally every single one is denying to do so? That's a form of discrimination. You can't put that extra effort onto the couples side even if you wanted to solve it like this or else they're just going to get redirected for years... Also the clerk in the next country could deny them for the same reason. And so on forever.
yeah, that's what I tried to imply with "or else they're just going to get redirected for years..." 
|
On September 02 2015 06:43 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 06:41 Plansix wrote:On September 02 2015 06:40 Toadesstern wrote:On September 02 2015 06:32 Buckyman wrote:On September 02 2015 06:01 Plansix wrote:
So you are saying that a court clerk should be able to deny government services for any reason that might object to their religion? Like if their religion stated that blacks and whites shouldn't be able to marry? And allowing them to do so would be blasphemy, so no marriage license. I personally think there is a very narrow personal right to not be required by the government to make or certify a statement that one's religion strictly forbids one to make. I honestly do not know the best way to reconcile that with the recent supreme court ruling. I would argue in favor of attempting to satisfy both rights with minimum overall inconvenience, in this case assigning the gay couple to a different clerk rather than firing and replacing the clerk, but I could be persuaded otherwise. In other words, I think a recusal is appropriate but a firing is not. What if, like in this case, literally every single one is denying to do so? That's a form of discrimination. You can't put that extra effort onto the couples side even if you wanted to solve it like this or else they're just going to get redirected for years... Also the clerk in the next country could deny them for the same reason. And so on forever. yeah, that's what I tried to imply with "or else they're just going to get redirected for years..."
Yeah, well we have had a couple people try to make the argument of "how hard is it to drive to another town to get your marriage license?" I'm just pointing out the endless flaw with that argument. That if one clerk can do it, they call can and that makes gay marriage not really legal in the state. Because its at the whim of the county clerk.
|
On September 02 2015 06:41 Plansix wrote:Also the clerk in the next country could deny them for the same reason. And so on forever.
If it ever gets to the point where literally nobody is issuing marriage licenses then we'd need to redesign the whole marriage process. But we aren't there, so the situation is only moderately messy. And I don't think we'll ever be there in any society where gay people want to marry.
|
On September 02 2015 06:46 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2015 06:41 Plansix wrote:Also the clerk in the next country could deny them for the same reason. And so on forever. If it ever gets to the point where literally nobody is issuing marriage licenses then we'd need to redesign the whole marriage process. But we aren't there, so the situation is only moderately messy.
well, literally noone in her office is willing to issue marriage licenses either because she's blackmailing the staff she has available or because literally every single one refuses to do so for personal reasons. If they want to keep refusing they should probably try to hire someone who's willing to do so in the long run. And for the time being, to make sure the couples aren't mistreated perhaps pay someone from somewhere else to do the job they aren't willing to do? As long as the couples don't have to be the ones searching/driving/paying extra in any way that should make for a temporary solution.
On top of being just, that way it would be in the offices interest to have some people who are willing to issue marriage licenses (duh...) because they can't just hire someone everytime someone wants to get married in the long run lol
|
Hire someone else to do it? Fuck that, the taxpayer is paying this woman to do a job. She can do it herself, quit, or get charged with a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
