Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[DConnell Member]

They're NOT being fired because of their religion but their inability to perform the job. If my religious beliefs prevented me from handling money I wouldn't be much good as a cashier yet according to your logic an employer shouldn't be allowed to fire me because of it.

 

Thing is, the goalpost was just changed, and some officials are being put into a conflict of interest between job and beliefs due to it. If someone is fired because of that change, it ultimately is being fired because of their religion.

 

To use your example, if you were unable to handle money due to religious beliefs, but your job suddenly changed to involve handling money, wouldn't it stand to reason that if you were fired, it was because of your beliefs? Until 2 days ago there was no conflict. but now they're suddenly unfit for their jobs? As I asked Stoffel, if your job suddenly changed to seriously conflict with your values, would you be able to just set them aside?

 

Frankly, I find it appalling that the response to not wishing to do a task that conflicts with values is "Fire them!". No working things out, no compromise, just "You don't agree with gay marriage, GTFO!" For a viewpoint that is supposedly rooted in a desire for love, that seems awfully hateful to me. Love is kind, and the responses I'm seeing here are anything but.

 

These officials didn't ask to be put into a position that conflicted with their values. The job didn't conflict until 2 days ago.

[TMYW]

So if you were hired to clean up a department store, then suddenly the policy changed and you were outsourced to start cleaning jail cells.  If you refused to do it is that grounds to fire you because you feel that such a position might be dangerous and it wasn't what you were originally hired to do? You could certainly leave the company but I don't think a business has a right to force you to cooperate by threatening to fire you. That's called a hostile work environment which is generally not legal. And I doubt most unions would be very keen on this practice, either.

Your analogy is hilariously ridiculous. The situation with these jackasses refusing service to gay people is no different than when a person used to working in a "white's only" section of a diner all of sudden had to start serving blacks. No part of their job changed other than the type of customer they had to serve. They still served people that sat with their butts on chairs and ate with their mouths using knives and forks with. In these redneck towns that still want to refuse issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the issue of whether or not their job requirements change is exactly the same. Gay couples walk in on their two feet and hand the forms to the clerk with their hands just like any heterosexual couple would. The only difference might be in what box they check off on the form.

 

But the real difference between the two scenarios I mentioned is that racists working in previously-segregated lunch counters didn't have their religion protecting them when they didn't want to serve blacks.

[TPreston]

Thing is, the goalpost was just changed, and some officials are being put into a conflict of interest between job and beliefs due to it. If someone is fired because of that change, it ultimately is being fired because of their religion.

 

To use your example, if you were unable to handle money due to religious beliefs, but your job suddenly changed to involve handling money, wouldn't it stand to reason that if you were fired, it was because of your beliefs? Until 2 days ago there was no conflict. but now they're suddenly unfit for their jobs? As I asked Stoffel, if your job suddenly changed to seriously conflict with your values, would you be able to just set them aside?

 

Frankly, I find it appalling that the response to not wishing to do a task that conflicts with values is "Fire them!". No working things out, no compromise, just "You don't agree with gay marriage, GTFO!" For a viewpoint that is supposedly rooted in a desire for love, that seems awfully hateful to me. Love is kind, and the responses I'm seeing here are anything but.

 

These officials didn't ask to be put into a position that conflicted with their values. The job didn't conflict until 2 days ago.

The same can be said for loving v virgina I don't care if you think this is an invalid religious view the government or courts are incapable of distinguishing what is a good religious opinion from what is a bad one.

[Taliseian]

You keep missing the point....

 

The point is, today there is a new law and if they are unable or unwilling to do their job...what other alternative is there?

 

If they can transfer, ok......but if they can't give a marriage license to a gay couple, then they need to find a job that they can do.

 

Spouting religious arguments for or against doesn't make any difference in the law.

 

It's pretty simple....do your job or find another.

 

This isn't a matter of one side showing love or compassion to another.  This is the cold hard fact that we have a law in place and there are people that are now breaking the law by not doing their job. 

 

Remember when Mayor Newsom in San Francisco performed gay marriage ceremonies?  At that time he was breaking the law and all 4,000 same sex marriages were deemed null and void by the state government.  There was even talk of charges being given to Mayor Newsom for breaking the law.

 

Things have changed....but if you break the law you break the law.

 

 

 

T

[TMYW]

Thing is, the goalpost was just changed, and some officials are being put into a conflict of interest between job and beliefs due to it. If someone is fired because of that change, it ultimately is being fired because of their religion.

 

To use your example, if you were unable to handle money due to religious beliefs, but your job suddenly changed to involve handling money, wouldn't it stand to reason that if you were fired, it was because of your beliefs? Until 2 days ago there was no conflict. but now they're suddenly unfit for their jobs? As I asked Stoffel, if your job suddenly changed to seriously conflict with your values, would you be able to just set them aside?

 

Frankly, I find it appalling that the response to not wishing to do a task that conflicts with values is "Fire them!". No working things out, no compromise, just "You don't agree with gay marriage, GTFO!" For a viewpoint that is supposedly rooted in a desire for love, that seems awfully hateful to me. Love is kind, and the responses I'm seeing here are anything but.

 

These officials didn't ask to be put into a position that conflicted with their values. The job didn't conflict until 2 days ago.

No. The goalposts did not move. The job does not require that they pledge some oath to accept gay people. They're still free believe to that "god hates fags" all they want, but they need to do their job without discriminating against their customers.

 

If you're a vegetarian and animal rights advocate and you work in the department issuing business licenses, you don't get to refuse issuing a business license to somebody wanting to start a fried chicken restaurant.

 

If you allow this crap to go on, what's next? A fundie Christian fireman refusing to put out a fire that starts at a gay book store?

[DConnell Member]

I can't imagine something I wouldn't do if it was part of my job description, unless it would go against the law or human decency.

 

 

So you wouldn't do something that does against "human decency". I'd call that your sense of what's right - your values. So you wouldn't do something that went against your values?

 

Yet you take issue with people wishing to not go against their values, when their job changed suddenly.

 

I'm not saying that gays should be denied their right to marry. I'm saying that as a Constitutionally-protected right, the religious freedom of the officials in question must also be considered, especially since the game has just changed. While I don't agree with the ruling, I'm not contesting the fact that is it now law, and must be followed. But at the same time, free exercise of one's religion must also be respected. That means as an integral part of some people's value system, for better or worse, not necessarily simply on Sunday in Church.

 

One group's rights does not negate the others - this is true for both sides of the equation. Christians do not have the right to prevent gay marriage, but gays do not have the right to demand that people go against their values and participate in the ceremony.

 

A compromise is needed, not arguing over whose rights matter more.

You keep missing the point....

 

The point is, today there is a new law and if they are unable or unwilling to do their job...what other alternative is there?

 

If they can transfer, ok......but if they can't give a marriage license to a gay couple, then they need to find a job that they can do.

 

Spouting religious arguments for or against doesn't make any difference in the law.

 

It's pretty simple....do your job or find another.

 

This isn't a matter of one side showing love or compassion to another.  This is the cold hard fact that we have a law in place and there are people that are now breaking the law by not doing their job. 

 

Remember when Mayor Newsom in San Francisco performed gay marriage ceremonies?  At that time he was breaking the law and all 4,000 same sex marriages were deemed null and void by the state government.  There was even talk of charges being given to Mayor Newsom for breaking the law.

 

Things have changed....but if you break the law you break the law.

 

 

 

T

 

FFS! I've already said my stance on the clerk. Go read it!

 

I'm talking about officiating/patrticipating in the ceremony! If you're going to debate me, debate what I'm actually saying!

[TPreston]

  I'm saying that as a Constitutionally-protected right, the religious freedom of the officials in question must also be considered,

And you don't to chose what is an acceptable religious view, If someone decides race mixing is against their religion now they can refuse marriage licences to inter-racial couples, If they're a scientologist they can now refuse a marriage licence because one spouse is a psychologist, If they're satanists now they can refuse marriage licences to christians. 

 

It dosnt matter if you think that the above positions are religiously valid the courts are no more able to inspect them than a scientist is able to inspect the paranormal.

[DocM]

You keep missing the point....

The point is, today there is a new law and if they are unable or unwilling to do their job...what other alternative is there?

>

The one I posted several posts ago. Seldom is there single person qualified for a job. Let one who has no objection temporarily relieve the one that does, basically an assignment swap. We did it on a daily basis wrt pro-life surgical nurses scheduled to assist during abortions, or pro-life pharmacists who were asked to dispense morning after pills.

It's called opting for accomodation vs. insisting on confrontation.

[FloatingFatMan]

I don't know, I think getting 37/50 states to legalize same sex marriage in under 15 years is pretty fast. I don't think SCOTUS needed to act at all personally.

 

 

Ever heard of the first amendment?

 

 

Law does not supersede religion quite so easily.

 

And that very same first amendment prohibits government employees from using their personal religion to refuse government service to citizens.

By the same token, the government has no right to force its employees to check their beliefs at the door. We are guaranteed free expression of our religion, and that does not end at the church door. I do agree that being able to deny a marriage license is wrong, but it is similarly wrong to force someone to officiate at a ceremony against their faith. You can't suspend one right to accommodate the other, and that needs to be true regardless of which side you're on.

 

There has to be some compromise that protects both parties' rights. Saying that the official must do it is wrong, but so is preventing the now-legal gay marriage.

 

The only compromise is for the government employee to step aside and get a colleague do it.  If there is no suitable colleague, then they MUST provide the service.

 

If your personal beliefs are contrary to the law, you should not be doing that job.

[DConnell Member]

The one I posted several posts ago. Seldom is there single person qualified for a job. Let one who has no objection temporarily relieve the one that does, basically an assignment swap. We did it on a daily basis wrt pro-life surgical nurses scheduled to assist during abortions, or pro-life pharmacists who were asked to dispense morning after pills.

It's called opting for accomodation vs. insisting on confrontation.

 

Good point. If a JOTP doesn't want to officiate at a gay wedding, why can't he switch with one who doesn't object? Or the clerk who isn't comfortable with it switch with one who is?

And you don't to chose what is an acceptable religious view, If someone decides race mixing is against their religion now they can refuse marriage licences to inter-racial couples, If they're a scientologist they can now refuse a marriage licence because one spouse is a psychologist, If they're satanists now they can refuse marriage licences to christians. 

 

It dosnt matter if you think that the above positions are religiously valid the courts are no more able to inspect them than a scientist is able to inspect the paranormal.

 

Now who's setting up strawmen?

[TPreston]

Now who's setting up strawmen?

Its not a strawman if you want to allow this religious exemption you don't get to limit it to just one religion or dictate what is a valid religious objection all the above would be covered.

I know this is devastating to your position but it needs to be addressed.

[Stoffel]

So you wouldn't do something that does against "human decency". I'd call that your sense of what's right - your values. So you wouldn't do something that went against your values?

 

Yet you take issue with people wishing to not go against their values, when their job changed suddenly.

 

I'm not saying that gays should be denied their right to marry. I'm saying that as a Constitutionally-protected right, the religious freedom of the officials in question must also be considered, especially since the game has just changed. While I don't agree with the ruling, I'm not contesting the fact that is it now law, and must be followed. But at the same time, free exercise of one's religion must also be respected. That means as an integral part of some people's value system, for better or worse, not necessarily simply on Sunday in Church.

 

One group's rights does not negate the others - this is true for both sides of the equation. Christians do not have the right to prevent gay marriage, but gays do not have the right to demand that people go against their values and participate in the ceremony.

 

A compromise is needed, not arguing over whose rights matter more.

 

FFS! I've already said my stance on the clerk. Go read it!

 

I'm talking about officiating/patrticipating in the ceremony! If you're going to debate me, debate what I'm actually saying!

 

What you are asking for is that it is allowed to discriminate people because of you religion while working for the government. That just doesn't seem right to me.

I also don't understand why you keep going on about participating in a gay wedding ceremony. You are not, you are just making sure people sign the right paper work. That's it. You are not required to go to the wedding party afterwards.

[Emn1ty]

What you are asking for is that it is allowed to discriminate people because of you religion while working for the government. That just doesn't seem right to me.

I also don't understand why you keep going on about participating in a gay wedding ceremony. You are not, you are just making sure people sign the right paper work. That's it. You are not required to go to the wedding party afterwards.

 

The word discrimination has transformed to be used as some kind of bad thing, despite its meaning being a neutral one. We discriminate in a general sense all the time, for many reasons. Age, gender, race, legal immigration status, etc. Discrimination can be positive or negative (affirmative action vs segregation). What we need to define is what kinds of discrimination are understandable and acceptable. it's not really practical to eliminate all discrimination because the reality is people are different and should be treated different in some cases.

 

Should we not offer help to struggling students because it's unfair to offer aid to them for reasons that other student's cannot fulfill because they aren't the same? What qualifies as valid treatment when it comes to the differences between people? Is it fair to deny someone a service because you disagree with their life choices? No. Is it fair to force those people to do things against their values (even if it's not something personal it's just something they don't want to partake in)?

 

Where do we draw the lines, when do one person's rights end and another's begins? Is it really fair to throw out an entire group's rights just because you don't agree with them? All these questions must be answered before you start steamrolling over people's freedoms. As has been said, a compromise. Discrimination happens all the time and sometimes it's necessary.

 

Throwing aside labels and associations, looking at the black and white of the issue here we come down to one group saying its rights supersedes another's. I expect both sides to respect each other's rights and form a compromise. Not petty moral debates about who is right and wrong. Right and wrong isn't quite so objective here since the whole idea is based on personal values and choices as well as different standards. So neither can really make a stand on those grounds since their definitions are entirely different.

[hagjohn]

 The job didn't conflict until 2 days ago.

 

What you mean is they didn't care about the morality of the people coming before them until it was the gays.

[Stoffel]

The word discrimination has transformed to be used as some kind of bad thing, despite its meaning being a neutral one. We discriminate in a general sense all the time, for many reasons. Age, gender, race, legal immigration status, etc. Discrimination can be positive or negative (affirmative action vs segregation). What we need to define is what kinds of discrimination are understandable and acceptable. it's not really practical to eliminate all discrimination because the reality is people are different and should be treated different in some cases.

 

Should we not offer help to struggling students because it's unfair to offer aid to them for reasons that other student's cannot fulfill because they aren't the same? What qualifies as valid treatment when it comes to the differences between people? Is it fair to deny someone a service because you disagree with their life choices? No. Is it fair to force those people to do things against their values (even if it's not something personal it's just something they don't want to partake in)?

 

Where do we draw the lines, when do one person's rights end and another's begins? Is it really fair to throw out an entire group's rights just because you don't agree with them? All these questions must be answered before you start steamrolling over people's freedoms. As has been said, a compromise. Discrimination happens all the time and sometimes it's necessary.

 

Throwing aside labels and associations, looking at the black and white of the issue here we come down to one group saying its rights supersedes another's. I expect both sides to respect each other's rights and form a compromise. Not petty moral debates about who is right and wrong. Right and wrong isn't quite so objective here since the whole idea is based on personal values and choices as well as different standards. So neither can really make a stand on those grounds since their definitions are entirely different.

 

When we are talking about your private life you are absolutely right.

If you work for the government, you work for the people, you don't get to choose which ones you work for and which ones you don't. If that means putting your private religious beliefs aside to do your job, then so be it. You won't convince me otherwise

[theyarecomingforyou]

Thing is, the goalpost was just changed, and some officials are being put into a conflict of interest between job and beliefs due to it. If someone is fired because of that change, it ultimately is being fired because of their religion.

I really don't have any sympathy for such bigots. It's no different to refusing a mixed race couple a marriage certificate. Anybody no longer able to fulfill their job description should be dismissed. I don't consider religious beliefs to be any more important than any other personal belief. If one believes, for instance, that morbidly obese people shouldn't be served fast food then one is entitled to that belief but it is incompatible with a job in the fast food sector.

 

Christians aren't being asked to enter into marriage with a same sex partner, they're simply being asked to be decent human beings. It saddens me that anyone would be so intolerant as to refuse a same sex couple a marriage certificate. 

[DocM]

Good point. If a JOTP doesn't want to officiate at a gay wedding, why can't he switch with one who doesn't object? Or the clerk who isn't comfortable with it switch with one who is?

>

It only poses a problem for SJW's who prefer browbeating others for their beliefs rather than seek an accommodating compromise. The same people will demand their beliefs be accommodated without question. Hypocrites.

[Beyond Godlike]

What you mean is they didn't care about the morality of the people coming before them until it was the gays.

 

Well put.  Christians are only christian when its convenient.  They keep proving it to us over and over in this thread and everywhere else.  

[TPreston]

It only poses a problem for SJW's who prefer browbeating others for their beliefs rather than seek an accommodating compromise. The same people will demand their beliefs be accommodated without question. Hypocrites.

I didn't know bobby Jindal was an sjw wow you learn something new everyday

"This is a clear violation of constitutional rights and federal and state law. ... Disciplinary action should be taken immediately -- including the revoking of

edition.cnn.com/2009/US/10/16/louisiana.interracial.marriage

Y no compromise ?

[tompkin]

If you own a business you can refuse service to anyone on ground guaranteed through the constitution.  (religious freedom)

Actually, it can only to a limited degree and from a practical matter it wouldn't.

 

First, civil rights cannot be violated under the guise of religion. I went to a Southern Baptist private college and even though they were under the Southern Baptist Convention, they still could not violate the civil rights of someone. At the present time, Gay people do not have all the civil rights  under law that other minorities do but my own opinion is that this is only a matter of time.

But from a practical matter, why would you restrict gay people from your business? Even though a minority they still make up a significant market. You would just be taking money out of your own pocket. 

I think that this ruling may have at least as big an impact on society, if not more, than the civil rights era had.

The civil rights laws did about as much as they could to protect racial minorities. The problem was that people still had prejudices and laws can only do so much. One example of this was that the law said that minorities could not be discriminated against in housing. What happened was that, although no laws were broken, real estate prices were raised to a level that it excluded those minorities that might have lived in a sub-division.

With gays, it will be different. First, it's not easily recognized who is gay and who isn't. Gay people "look" just like everyone else. Secondly, unlike the racial minorities of the '60's, the gay population has money. They will be able to afford those sub-divisions at the higher prices. I probably won't live to see how all this turns out but it should be interesting to those who will. 

[DefyTheOutcome]

Thing is, the goalpost was just changed, and some officials are being put into a conflict of interest between job and beliefs due to it. If someone is fired because of that change, it ultimately is being fired because of their religion.

The thing is, the laws change everyday: the speed limits on a road was lowered from 70 mph to 55 mph, the labeling on the food must indicate that it contains GMO.

It does not matter, people must comply to the new laws.

These people are here to perform a job, and apply the law, not discuss it or apply differently on different people because of their own ideas.

Frankly, I find it appalling that the response to not wishing to do a task that conflicts with values is "Fire them!". No working things out, no compromise, just "You don't agree with gay marriage, GTFO!" For a viewpoint that is supposedly rooted in a desire for love, that seems awfully hateful to me. Love is kind, and the responses I'm seeing here are anything but.

 

These officials didn't ask to be put into a position that conflicted with their values. The job didn't conflict until 2 days ago.

Victimization episode 245, Season 74 ...

This should have been a state level issue. We've converted almost all the United States to same sex marriage in under 15 years. 37 out of 50 states before the SCOTUS ruling and more were following. People want to say that it was taking to long, but what's fast enough in regards to legislation? A year, five years? Decade? Several decades? This is certainly one of the fastest civil rights battles of our history. Racial equality took hundreds of years, equality for women took decades (both of which are still actively fought for perhaps even to overcompensation). And the pro gay marriage community thinks that we're not moving fast enough and we've not even hit a decade and a half, so much so we need to effectively mandate it?

So, your argument is: 'You gays should be happy, it went fast'.

This is a great slogan for the next issue such like women pay equality: "Hey, Women, you will get equal pay in 50 years. You may be old and stuck in a wheel chair in a Nursing home at that time but, hey, we are good. Do not hate us because we denied us you equal pay during your working years"

 

 

The word discrimination has transformed to be used as some kind of bad thing, despite its meaning being a neutral one. We discriminate in a general sense all the time, for many reasons. Age, gender, race, legal immigration status, etc. Discrimination can be positive or negative (affirmative action vs segregation). What we need to define is what kinds of discrimination are understandable and acceptable. it's not really practical to eliminate all discrimination because the reality is people are different and should be treated different in some cases.

 

Should we not offer help to struggling students because it's unfair to offer aid to them for reasons that other student's cannot fulfill because they aren't the same? What qualifies as valid treatment when it comes to the differences between people? Is it fair to deny someone a service because you disagree with their life choices? No. Is it fair to force those people to do things against their values (even if it's not something personal it's just something they don't want to partake in)?

 

Where do we draw the lines, when do one person's rights end and another's begins? Is it really fair to throw out an entire group's rights just because you don't agree with them? All these questions must be answered before you start steamrolling over people's freedoms. As has been said, a compromise. Discrimination happens all the time and sometimes it's necessary.

 

Throwing aside labels and associations, looking at the black and white of the issue here we come down to one group saying its rights supersedes another's. I expect both sides to respect each other's rights and form a compromise. Not petty moral debates about who is right and wrong. Right and wrong isn't quite so objective here since the whole idea is based on personal values and choices as well as different standards. So neither can really make a stand on those grounds since their definitions are entirely different.

Out of the lacquer of pseudo-seriousness,

you start steamrolling over people's freedoms

One's freedoms and rights stop where other begins.

It really cannot be simpler than that

 

 

It only poses a problem for SJW's who prefer browbeating others for their beliefs rather than seek an accommodating compromise. The same people will demand their beliefs be accommodated without question. Hypocrites.

Victimization episode 246, Season 74 ...

A compromise would continue the discrimination suffered by gay people. You would end with whole-milk marriage for heterosexual couple and skimmed-milk marriage for gay couples.

[mudslag]

 

 

Where do we draw the lines, when do one person's rights end and another's begins? Is it really fair to throw out an entire group's rights just because you don't agree with them? All these questions must be answered before you start steamrolling over people's freedoms. As has been said, a compromise. Discrimination happens all the time and sometimes it's necessary.

 

 

 

 

Exactly how does allowing SSM take away someone else's freedom? The anti-side didn't lose a single right. They have the same right to marry as they did the day before the ruling, nothing changed for them.

[DConnell Member]

A compromise would continue the discrimination suffered by gay people. You would end with whole-milk marriage for heterosexual couple and skimmed-milk marriage for gay couples.

 

He was suggesting letting the clerk/whatever switch out with someone else, not restricting or qualifying marriage in any way. How would that compromise be discrimination?

[DConnell Member]

In b4 waah my business cant have a no policy & wahh my local government worker has to do her job & waah my non profit cant engage in anti-gay political campaigning and waah the government is forcing my church to marry gay people (btw totally unrelated point guise but my church is actually a for profit business pssst ya don't need to report that inconvenient fact guise)

But as you said they could do none of this before. This is the same person who bent over backwards to demand gay people "put up with the inconvenience" of having to move their terminally ill spouse to a state where their marriage is recognised.

Nothing has changed.

 

Translation: The opposition is being way too reasonable. Better prop up the "evil Christian" strawman to beat on. We're suggesting compromises, not demanding our way or else. We're not demanding the upholding of one law at the expense of another, but offering ways that the rights of both parties can be honored.

 

Stinks to blatantly be on the unreasonable side of the argument, doesn't it?

[ramesees]

He was suggesting letting the clerk/whatever switch out with someone else, not restricting or qualifying marriage in any way. How would that compromise be discrimination?

 

And if the only clerk available is Christian what should the couple looking to get married / get their license do ?