Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[DConnell Member]

Your compromise is unworkable, It would allow anyone to refuse marriage licences for practically any reason because the courts are unable to say which religious objection is valid and which isn't.

 

Then offer your own compromise that addresses the concerns of both sides.

 

You'll note I've tried another approach to the problem above. I am concerned with upholding the new ruling as well as protecting freedom of religion. Are you willing to try to address the concerns of the opposition as well as your preferred side?

[theyarecomingforyou]

I read an article (figures I can't find it) that stated that the majority of American Christians faith is tied very tightly to their political ideology. That makes sense to me as a Christian given the politically based schisms I've seen within the faith over the past 20 years or so. There have always been sharp divides within the church (how many denominations are there now?   ) but it seems to me to be getting much worse post 9/11.

That's because the more reasonable, objective people are abandoning religion, leaving those on the more extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The sheer number of denominations demonstrates that there is no true faith, only whatever people want to believe. 

 

Religion is too often used as a way for bigots to justify discrimination and intolerance. It's sad that there is so much hostility to allowing loving same sex couples to get married. Where's all the hostility towards Bristol Palin for having sex outside of wedlock? I mean, that's supposed to be a Christian value. Religion shouldn't be used as a shield to protect bigotry.

 

Hmm. Something just occurred to me. Jesus is quoted as saying "Render unto Caesar's what is Caesars, and unto God what is God's" (roughly). In context he was speaking of paying taxes, but the wider interpretation is generally that one can perform civic duty without conflict with your religious principles. So that could possibly remove problem for any affected officials - doing their govt. job would not be a reflection on ones religion.

I'm surprised it has taken you this long to realise that religion can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean.

[TPreston]

Then suggest your own compromise. Otherwise you're just whacking that strawman.

There is no need for a compromise just like there was no need for a compromise when inter-racial marriage was legalised and when schools were desegregated no new contract was needed and no concern was given to their "sincerely held religious belief

[DConnell Member]

That's because the more reasonable, objective people are abandoning religion, leaving those on the more extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The sheer number of denominations demonstrates that there is no true faith, only whatever people want to believe. 

 

Religion is too often used as a way for bigots to justify discrimination and intolerance. It's sad that there is so much hostility to allowing loving same sex couples to get married. Where's all the hostility towards Bristol Palin for having sex outside of wedlock? I mean, that's supposed to be a Christian value. Religion shouldn't be used as a shield to protect bigotry.

 

I'm surprised it has taken you this long to realise that religion can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean.

 

Whatever. It's pretty clear at this point that all a lot of you are interested in is taking potshots at others' beliefs. At this point, this discussion is more annoying than engaging, and my aunt in the hospital as of last night is putting me seriously on edge. I'm bowing out before my stress over her makes me less than civil in this discussion. I'm not going to take it out on you guys (some of my pre-edit responses show some signs of that already.)

 

To those who discussed reasonably and honestly, while I don't agree with you, I respect your opinion.

 

Have fun guys. I'm out.

[FloatingFatMan]

Whatever. It's pretty clear at this point that all a lot of you are interested in is taking potshots at others' beliefs. At this point, this discussion is more annoying than engaging, and my aunt in the hospital as of last night is putting me seriously on edge. I'm bowing out before my stress over her makes me less than civil in this discussion. I'm not going to take it out on you guys (some of my pre-edit responses show some signs of that already.)

 

To those who discussed reasonably and honestly, while I don't agree with you, I respect your opinion.

 

To the rest, have fun.

 

I hope your aunt makes a speedy recovery, dude.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Whatever. It's pretty clear at this point that all a lot of you are interested in is taking potshots at others' beliefs. At this point, this discussion is more annoying than engaging, and my aunt in the hospital as of last night is putting me seriously on edge. I'm bowing out before my stress over her makes me less than civil in this discussion. I'm not going to take it out on you guys (some of my pre-edit responses show some signs of that already.)

 

To those who discussed reasonably and honestly, while I don't agree with you, I respect your opinion.

I've been perfectly reasonable. I hope everything works out for your aunt and I'm sorry that you're feeling stressed

[ATLien_0]

I can honestly say this is one of the more reasonable debates I have seen on here, no serious hate bashing on here

[Lazy8s]

That's because the more reasonable, objective people are abandoning religion, leaving those on the more extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The sheer number of denominations demonstrates that there is no true faith, only whatever people want to believe. 

 

Religion is too often used as a way for bigots to justify discrimination and intolerance. It's sad that there is so much hostility to allowing loving same sex couples to get married. Where's all the hostility towards Bristol Palin for having sex outside of wedlock? I mean, that's supposed to be a Christian value. Religion shouldn't be used as a shield to protect bigotry.

 

 

I agree in large part with your last sentence, but not the first. It is true that many are abandoning the faith, but many more are also joining it. It isn't as clear cut or as biased as you claim.

 

I do avoid the extremes, for sure. They would just as soon see the world burn to "prove" they were right about "insert convoluted reasoning here"....but as I stated elsewhere, there are an unspoken number of Christians who would much rather shield someone like Bristol Palin as opposed to crucifying her. Hating people/punishing people/demonizing groups of whatever stripe is nothing any Christian should take part in, and more should speak up opposing that behavior.

 

The "disillusionment" comes from never seeing twisted, extreme evangelical teachings that have no root in the bible, never coming to pass. Listening to sick, self proclaimed GOP "Christians" screaming hatred of this group or that from the rooftops, and then seeing it all fall apart and not being able to understand why.

 

Your statement also implies that anyone who follows whatever faith is by association stupid and unable to think for themselves. You've a right to your opinion, as I've a right to mine, but I would suggest not defining Christianity solely and according to republicans and televangelists.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I agree in large part with your last sentence, but not the first. It is true that many are abandoning the faith, but many more are also joining it. It isn't as clear cut or as biased as you claim.

Christianity is in decline in the US and most other developed countries, with a significant increase in those without any religious affiliation.

 

Source: Pew Research

 

I do avoid the extremes, for sure. They would just as soon see the world burn to "prove" they were right about "insert convoluted reasoning here"....but as I stated elsewhere, there are an unspoken number of Christians who would much rather shield someone like Bristol Palin as opposed to crucifying her. Hating people/punishing people/demonizing groups of whatever stripe is nothing any Christian should take part in, and more should speak up opposing that behavior.

I'm not suggesting that Bristol Palin should be attacked. I'm merely pointing out the double standard. As always most of the noise comes from a vocal minority who are not as influential as they'd like to believe.

 

The "disillusionment" comes from never seeing twisted, extreme evangelical teachings that have no root in the bible, never coming to pass. Listening to sick, self proclaimed GOP "Christians" screaming hatred of this group or that from the rooftops, and then seeing it all fall apart and not being able to understand why.

The problem, as I pointed out earlier, is that the Bible can be interpreted to mean anything people want it to mean. That doesn't mean that such beliefs are widespread but certainly there is a large degree of intolerance towards homosexuals in the US, something that I haven't seen in the UK to anywhere near the same degree.

 

Your statement also implies that anyone who follows whatever faith is by association stupid and unable to think for themselves. You've a right to your opinion, as I've a right to mine, but I would suggest not defining Christianity solely and according to republicans and televangelists.

Christianity is a broad spectrum and I'm well aware that the extremists you see on Fox News are not representative of Christianity as a whole, just as I'm aware that ISIS is not representative of Muslims. However, I consider anyone who believes in religion as the literal truth to lack objectivity and rationality. Religion is a social virus. How is it that people born in a Christian country are more likely to believe in Christianity whereas those born in a Muslim country are more likely to believe in Islam if not for the fact that religion is cultural, not factual? You can't expect me to believe it's a massive coincidence.

 

Clerks who refuse marriage certificates to same sex couples are doing so not in the name of Christianity but because of their own personal bigotry. Religion is whatever people want it to be or whatever people are told it should be. It's used to manipulate people for political and financial gain. The issue I have is that if someone is bigoted and Christian then it's their personal faith and that should be protected, whereas someone who believes the same and isn't religious has no protection. Religion shouldn't be treated as a protected class.

 

I have no problem with personal religious beliefs or faiths. I have a major problem with organised religions and those who impose their beliefs upon others, as we're seeing here.

[Lazy8s]

 

It is, and that's not what I disputed. It was the "why" of it. The number of people who will actively claim Christianity will decline even further in the years ahead.

 

These two points are tied together. The double standards are horrendous. We agree there.

 

I'm not sure why that's a point really. Demographics, environment - both social and otherwise, are huge factors in a person's belief systems. I don't think I've ever seen that disputed, but going back to the Fox News types, I do personally believe that the type of people you see on Fox, in the tea party, on TV in prominent positions, are having a massive effect on how people define their belief, and therefore are becoming representative of what so many see as mainstream Christianity, and I believe it's tied in with those falling numbers you mentioned.

 

I'm focusing on the bold, simply because I agree in large part with the rest. My beliefs, speaking for myself only, are the result of lots of questions, lots of doubt, and a lot of studying that book to learn what it really says, regardless of whether I like it or not.

So do I.

 

[PGHammer]

A Judge, Magistrate or Court Clerk does courthouse weddings. City Hall weddings are done by personnel in the City Clerks office. In many cases there are multiple people qualified so objectors don't have to participate.

At out institutuon, a public hospital, this was also the procedure for Catholic or otherwise pro-life nurses who didn't wish to participate in abortions. It's also fairly common for those pro-life pharmacists who don't want to issue morning-after pills.

Also, it's NOT just county and state-level judges and justices of the peace (JPs) that can legally perform weddings - have any of the arguers considered United States Judges (and Justices)?

 

Is there ANY law, anywhere, that would block a sitting judge in any United States Courthouse (yes - I am including the Supreme Court), from officiating at weddings? (While it is tradition that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS administer the Oath of Officeto the President of the United States, that is ALL it is; there have been two exceptions in the last 125 years alone - Calvin Coolidge and Grover Cleveland).  Local (Washington, DC) law explicitly gives that right to sitting judges in the city's various United States Courts - the sole exception is, in fact, the Court of Military Appeals.  I'm actually surprised that the pro-SSM protesters didn't take the time (or invest some small energy) to consider asking a sitting United States Court Judge to marry them; after all, Washington, DC has no shortage of either Judges or Court buildings.

A Judge, Magistrate or Court Clerk does courthouse weddings. City Hall weddings are done by personnel in the City Clerks office. In many cases there are multiple people qualified so objectors don't have to participate.

At out institutuon, a public hospital, this was also the procedure for Catholic or otherwise pro-life nurses who didn't wish to participate in abortions. It's also fairly common for those pro-life pharmacists who don't want to issue morning-after pills.

Also, it's NOT just county and state-level judges and justices of the peace (JPs) that can legally perform weddings - have any of the arguers considered United States Judges (and Justices)?

 

Is there ANY law, anywhere, that would block a sitting judge in any United States Courthouse (yes - I am including the Supreme Court), from officiating at weddings? (While it is tradition that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS administer the Oath of Officeto the President of the United States, that is ALL it is; there have been two exceptions in the last 125 years alone - Calvin Coolidge and Grover Cleveland).  Local (Washington, DC) law explicitly gives that right to sitting judges in the city's various United States Courts - the sole exception is, in fact, the Court of Military Appeals.  I'm actually surprised that the pro-SSM protesters didn't take the time (or invest some small energy) to consider asking a sitting United States Court Judge to marry them; after all, Washington, DC has no shortage of either Judges or Court buildings.

[FloatingFatMan]

I'm focusing on the bold, simply because I agree in large part with the rest. My beliefs, speaking for myself only, are the result of lots of questions, lots of doubt, and a lot of studying that book to learn what it really says, regardless of whether I like it or not.

 

 

There are always going to be exceptions, but in general, people tend to believe what their parents believed. Why? Because they grew up with it and it's all they really know.  The vast majority of religious people are only so because that's how they were nurtured.

 

That you actually asked questions and studied it indicates that you're one of the rare exceptions. Those that do this go one of two ways... Their belief gets stronger, or they become atheists.

[Lazy8s]

There are always going to be exceptions, but in general, people tend to believe what their parents believed. Why? Because they grew up with it and it's all they really know.  The vast majority of religious people are only so because that's how they were nurtured.

 

That you actually asked questions and studied it indicates that you're one of the rare exceptions. Those that do this go one of two ways... Their belief gets stronger, or they become atheists.

I've seen that too. I couldn't say for anyone else exactly what decides for a person which way they'll go.

[TPreston]

federal judge says Alabama counties must abide by court decisions allowing gay marriage.

U.S. District Judge Callie Granade in Mobile issued an order Wednesday updating a previous ruling in favor of same-sex marriage in Alabama.

Granade says state probate judges can't discriminate against gay couples because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled gay marriage is legal everywhere. But her order doesn't affect counties that have stopped issuing all marriage licenses.

The judge had put previous decisions on hold to allow time for the justices to rule.

Granade's order came at the request of groups representing gay couples across Alabama.

Many Alabama counties still aren't issuing same-sex marriage licenses despite the Supreme Court decision.

The Alabama Supreme Court has muddied the issue by granting time for gay marriage opponents to voice their opinion.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/probate-judges-opposed-gay-marriage-stand-firm-32146429

[TPreston]

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/gay_marriage_louisiana_distric.html

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/07/bobby_jindal_administration_wi.html

 

[tompkin]

Here is the way I see this.

Suppose I am a policeman and a law has just been passed that I don't agree with (religious or otherwise). I am bound under my oath to carry out the law whether I agree with it or not. It's not my job to argue that it is against my belief to enforce it. If I feel so strongly that I can't do it then I should resign. 

Same with any civil servant job. Their job is to do their job. Not be preferential to one group or another. If a law is passed that they are so strongly against that they don't feel that they can do it, then they should resign or ask for a transfer to a job where they won't have to do it. That's it.

Also, state attorney's can issue all the opinions they want but if it is in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court, it has about as much weight as my opinions.

[Emn1ty]

Here is the way I see this.

Suppose I am a policeman and a law has just been passed that I don't agree with (religious or otherwise). I am bound under my oath to carry out the law whether I agree with it or not. It's not my job to argue that it is against my belief to enforce it. If I feel so strongly that I can't do it then I should resign. 

Same with any civil servant job. Their job is to do their job. Not be preferential to one group or another. If a law is passed that they are so strongly against that they don't feel that they can do it, then they should resign or ask for a transfer to a job where they won't have to do it. That's it.

Also, state attorney's can issue all the opinions they want but if it is in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court, it has about as much weight as my opinions.

 

I think this is pretty fair, I just think it's a bit extreme to go so far as to say just "fire them all". The thing is, it may not be practical or fair for them to just resign. Resigning from public jobs may even lose them their pensions (which a lot of public workers are relying on getting), health insurance, etc. While I wish it was as simple as in the private sector, leaving a public service job is far more complex at times.

 

At the end of the day the solution should not be, "Well, do it or quit." That's not really fair and is somewhat against first amendment rights (which I'm seeing affect a lot of stuff lately... freedom of religions and speech seems to only count when you speak to the popular opinion. Insult anyone or speak frankly and you lose contracts and jobs).

 

It's getting quite ridiculous the standards we're imposing on people today. Everyone has to walk on eggshells around everyone else and the only people who get willingly trampled are conservative, religious Americans. It's all quite hypocritical, if you ask me.

[Taliseian]

It's getting quite ridiculous the standards we're imposing on people today. Everyone has to walk on eggshells around everyone else and the only people who get willingly trampled are conservative, religious Americans. It's all quite hypocritical, if you ask me.

 

Here's the thing about that.  There are a lot of beliefs, right/left/conservative/liberal/christian/jew/muslim/etc that will undoubtedly offend someone.  

 

What you have to remember is that while you have the freedom to believe what you want, to follow in your **personal life** whatever religion brings you comfort - when you are in a position where you are following laws or acting on behalf of the government, you personal feelings and beliefs have NO influence whatsoever on the performance of that job.

 

If you find yourself in a position where your personal beliefs contradict what your job is, you have several options...

 

1)  Request to be transferred or your duties reassigned

2)  Refuse to do your job - and suffer whatever consequences arise

3)  Resign and find a job you can do

 

The law is the law.  When you are in a position where you must act in accordance to the law, you personal feelings and beliefs can not interfere.  

 

Case in point - I know several police officers who are pro-recreational drug use who hated doing simple possession arrests - we're talking couple of grams of mary jane.  But, they chose to continue to be a policeman and had to push aside their feelings. 

 

While I'll be the first to admit that is a different moral ball-of-whacks, it's still the same idea.  They had the same choices that I listed above and they made their decision on how to proceed.

 

Laws will change.  Two weeks ago, SSM was illegal in some places and this week it is legal everywhere.  You can either adapt to the new law and do your job, request to be transferred to a different job/ask your responsibilities to be changed, or find a new job.

 

When you are dealing with legal or governmental policies, you have to accept that things will be different over time.

 

It's not a personal attack nor is it a case where people are being persecuted, it's the law and the law must be followed.

 

 

 

T

 

(edited for spelling - need more coffee)

[TPreston]

At the end of the day the solution should not be, "Well, do it or quit." That's not really fair and is somewhat against first amendment rights (which I'm seeing affect a lot of stuff lately... freedom of religions and speech seems to only count when you speak to the popular opinion. Insult anyone or speak frankly and you lose contracts and jobs).

Ill say it again if you create a religious exemption here it doesn't just apply to one religion but to all them anyone can refuse a marriage licence to anyone for any reason. You wont be able to limit what is a true religious conviction and what is not because the courts cant determine this.

[Emn1ty]

Here's the thing about that.  There are a lot of beliefs, right/left/conservative/liberal/christian/jew/muslim/etc that will undoubtedly offend someone.  

 

What you have to remember is that while you have the freedom to believe what you want, to follow in your **personal life** whatever religion brings you comfort - when you are in a position where you are following laws or acting on behalf of the government, you personal feelings and beliefs have NO influence whatsoever on the performance of that job.

 

If you find yourself in a position where your personal beliefs contradict what your job is, you have several options...

 

1)  Request to be transferred or your duties reassigned

2)  Refuse to do your job - and suffer whatever consequences arise

3)  Resign and find a job you can do

 

The law is the law.  When you are in a position where you must act in accordance to the law, you personal feelings and beliefs can not interfere.  

 

Case in point - I know several police officers who are pro-recreational drug use who hated doing simple possession arrests - we're talking couple of grams of mary jane.  But, they chose to continue to be a policeman and had to push aside their feelings. 

 

While I'll be the first to admit that is a different moral ball-of-whacks, it's still the same idea.  They had the same choices that I listed above and they made their decision on how to proceed.

 

Laws will change.  Two weeks ago, SSM was illegal in some places and this week it is legal everywhere.  You can either adapt to the new law and do your job, request to be transferred to a different job/ask your responsibilities to be changed, or find a new job.

 

When you are dealing with legal or governmental policies, you have to accept that things will be different over time.

 

It's not a personal attack nor is it a case where people are being persecuted, it's the law and the law must be followed.

 

 

 

T

 

(edited for spelling - need more coffee)

 

The thing is, I'm not so sure I want the government filled with people who's excuses for doing things are "I was just doing what I was told." I am not a proponent for mindless public workers who do not hold anything sacred. And to ask people to check their feelings, beliefs and convictions at the door as has been said before is just an unfair requirement. Especially when what feelings they must check at the door may change after they've already taken the job.

 

It's not fair to ask them to eject themselves from stable employment because the "game has changed" so to speak.

 

That being said, the three options given are reasonable.

 

PS: In regards to "the law is the law" I have three things to say to this statement. First, the law is open to interpretation and many times laws contradict in that case. 2) The Judiciary shouldn't be writing laws, so I find it well within people's rights to disagree with a branch that shouldn't be making new laws in the first place. 3) Laws change, the law is the law only as long as we accept it as such as such.

 

 

You are suggesting that we should protect people who don't equally apply their logic to everyone. Well, I don't think we should. This video demonstrates that you have a very biased view of this discussion.

I am for protecting people's way of life so long as it, what was it? Doesn't hurt anyone else. Right. But apparently forcing people to conform to another's way of life isn't defined as "hurting anyone else" despite the fact that the legalization of same sex marriage has obviously sprung up several debates. People are now acting on their own because they feel the government isn't working to represent them.

 

Regardless of if you believe what they believe (and this is why I believe that you are biased, because your discrimination of what beliefs are valid or invalid is based on your personal views rather than eliminating those views and judging beliefs equally on all counts) people have a right to be represented by their elected officials. They have a right to decide the laws of the land in their given local governments. "By the people, for the people." This core aspect of our country has been violated and I think it's unfair that people believe that it's okay to break the rules of how government works because "it's the right thing to do" when at the same time if it was the opposite decision then the LGBT community would be whining about SCOTUS "overstepping its bounds" and how they shouldn't be writing law.

 

The double standards here are unbelievable, and easily reasoned out with how the same sex marriage arguments have been cherry picking where their reasoning applies, that the logic they use only applies to them and them alone.

 

Rights are to be upheld only when they align with your views, apparently. Freedom of religion works as long as you're not stepping on other's toes while believing it (although merely believing in it constitutes such, and it only applies to certain religions), freedom of speech is sacrosanct... unless that freedom is being used to disagree with you, then it's bigotry.

 

Double standards left, right... everywhere and I hate the fact that nobody can throw their agendas aside and actually view the issues at hand with an objective mind. We'd rather quibble about how intolerant side X is about Y instead of getting to the meat of the issue.

[TPreston]

You are suggesting that we should protect people who don't equally apply their logic to everyone. Well, I don't think we should. This video demonstrates that you have a very biased view of this discussion.

Says the guy who wouldn't even let gay people be a part of the discussion.

 

I am for protecting people's way of life so long as it, what was it? Doesn't hurt anyone else. Right. But apparently forcing people to conform to another's way of life isn't defined as "hurting anyone else" despite the fact that the legalization of same sex marriage has obviously sprung up several debates. People are now acting on their own because they feel the government isn't working to represent them.

Your posts before the ruling reveal otherwise.

 

people have a right to be represented by their elected officials. They have a right to decide the laws of the land in their given local governments. "By the people, for the people." This core aspect of our country has been violated and I think it's unfair that people believe that it's okay to break the rules of how government works because "it's the right thing to do"

We already had this debate, I told you that you were wrong I don't see why you are bringing it up again its already been smacked down by the court. You were dragged kicking and screaming from "the courts cant rule on marriage" to "well they did it before but that was different"/

 

when at the same time if it was the opposite decision then the LGBT community would be whining about SCOTUS "overstepping its bounds" and how they shouldn't be writing law.

In a case requesting them to apply the 14th amendment that would be retarded.

 

And to ask people to check their feelings, beliefs and convictions at the door as has been said before is just an unfair requirement

To ask them to do their job is not an unfair requirement. Like I said if you allow one religious exemption you allow anyone to refuse a marriage licence for any reason. The courts cant determine if it is a valid religious objection.

The double standards here are unbelievable, and easily reasoned out with how the same sex marriage arguments have been cherry picking where their reasoning applies, that the logic they use only applies to them and them alone.

There is no double standard. If a gay county clerk refused a marriage licence to a straight couple on the grounds of religion they would face the same penalty.

 

Rights are to be upheld only when they align with your views, apparently. Freedom of religion works as long as you're not stepping on other's toes while believing it (although merely believing in it constitutes such, and it only applies to certain religions), freedom of speech is sacrosanct... unless that freedom is being used to disagree with you, then it's bigotry.

Yeah you are going to need to cite some actual cases.

 

2) The Judiciary shouldn't be writing laws

Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

 

And then a book

[Rippleman]

It's getting quite ridiculous the standards we're imposing on people today. 

 

Oh ya, treating everyone equally is tough for some.

 

Everyone has to walk on eggshells around everyone else and the only people who get willingly trampled are conservative, religious Americans. It's all quite hypocritical, if you ask me.

 

It's only seeming that way since the population in the USA has been controlled by the religious side for hundreds of years and they are not used to not having their own way. Like a kicking scream child, the religious masses is just witnessing a system  equalization that needed to happen badly. You will see this very same thing happen in the middle east in about 300 more years.

[tompkin]

At the end of the day the solution should not be, "Well, do it or quit." That's not really fair and is somewhat against first amendment rights (which I'm seeing affect a lot of stuff lately... freedom of religions and speech seems to only count when you speak to the popular opinion. Insult anyone or speak frankly and you lose contracts and jobs).

 

It's getting quite ridiculous the standards we're imposing on people today. Everyone has to walk on eggshells around everyone else and the only people who get willingly trampled are conservative, religious Americans. It's all quite hypocritical, if you ask me.

This is the way it was when I joined the Federal Government (long time in the past). I was told straight up that I couldn't show preferential treatment to any political or religious group. I could not have political or religious symbols or signs at my desk where I work. Any kind of "proselytizing" would not be allowed.

In short, by joining the office where I worked, i waived a few rights that an average person has. That was not meant to deprive me of rights. It was to protect ALL citizens from dealing with someone that had a bias against them. (Also protect the agency from showing an appearance of a bias).  

It the individual was not told of this when they joined their office, then shame on the people that hired her. But she cannot show bias towards people, especially when the law specifically prohibits it.

Normally, in a situation like this if she was already known to be a religious person and people saw that it would be a hardship on her then they would give her a lateral transfer somewhere so she wouldn't have to deal with it. The worst thing should could do, though, is to go start yelling to the press because then she has put herself in an adversarial relationship with her employer. Ultimately, that is a no win game.

[T3X4S]

This was mistakenly sent to me.  The person who sent it doesnt know me as well as he thinks he does.

I was going to "Reply to All" (about 40 people) and say what I think of their religion as a moral compass, but I didnt.

Sorry for the sizing, I wanted to get it all without the need to scroll

[tompkin]

This was mistakenly sent to me.  The person who sent it doesnt know me as well as he thinks he does.

I was going to "Reply to All" (about 40 people) and say what I think of their religion as a moral compass, but I didnt.

Sorry for the sizing, I wanted to get it all without the need to scroll

 

Do you know who originally wrote this? Was it the person that sent it to you or someone else?