Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 10:12:51 GMT -5
I have far more respect for this group, than the ones that want to stay in place and deny state issued licenses to people they don't personally agree with. I think we can, and should, expect agents of the government (at any level) to leave their religious beliefs at the door. If you can't do that, and it impacts your ability to do your job, then yes, you should either quit, or be fired. The government is not a normal, for-profit, business. It, and its employees, need to be held to a different standard. If you can't separate your religious beliefs from your job, than maybe you shouldn't be doing that job. Kudos to this group for not being flaming hypocrites.
Exactly. At least at first glance, they haven't sunk to the "flaming hypocrite" level their dissenters have.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jul 7, 2015 10:17:05 GMT -5
I don't know why they would have dissenters. Do I agree with their view? No. But that isn't really the point.
They are removing themselves from the situation since they don't feel they can in good conscience do the job any more. There are many jobs I wouldn't be able to carry out and still feel okay with myself, so I don't have them. I don't really see this as any different.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,498
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 7, 2015 10:20:14 GMT -5
I've never been in a financial position to quit because of my beliefs. I applaud the fact that, one, they are, which means they are good YM'ers, and two, they could have kept their jobs, grumbling and glaring under the breath, but chose to take the high road and leave rather than do what they felt was wrong, to them. At least they aren't hypocrites. But are they hypocrites if they handed out marriage licenses to previously known divorced people along with adulterers and people fornicating before marriage (all sins according to Christianity)? Not every one who asks for a marriage license are as pure as the driven snow. Many are more likely pure as driven slush.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 7, 2015 10:24:55 GMT -5
That very well could be. Nevertheless, they took a stand, no matter how unpopular it is and they acted on it. I was never in a position to vote with my feet. I envy their financial ability to do so. Whether I agree with them or not isn't the issue to Me.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 7, 2015 10:43:26 GMT -5
The irony is that there are always power struggles, and power shifts from time to time. It's "interesting" how when one group starts to take power away from another group, that group and supporters of that group will often use the same tactics/attacks that it complained about being used against it in the past. In this case, it happens to be against Christians, in other cases it's against other religions, people based on skin color, gender, sexual preference, etc. I'm really not sure what you are attempting to say here? Basically, in this particular case (although it can be used in pretty much any other case of a power shift) when Christians are in power and push beliefs on other people, those groups complain about the tactics/attacks used against them; and with the power shifting, those same people/groups seem to be using the same attacks/tactics they complained about being used against them. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, all you have to do is look at the attacks against Christians who honestly believe what they believe in this instance...the same tactic of mocking and threatening of ostracism is being used that was used against other groups in the past (i.e. believe what we think you should believe or else). Wars have been started that way, entire groups of people have been attacked for similar reasons...and when power shifts happen again, the cycle will continue. Our government seems to work pretty much the same way, which is part of the reason we have what we have when one party takes control over the executive branch.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jul 7, 2015 10:58:23 GMT -5
I'm really not sure what you are attempting to say here? Basically, in this particular case (although it can be used in pretty much any other case of a power shift) when Christians are in power and push beliefs on other people, those groups complain about the tactics/attacks used against them; and with the power shifting, those same people/groups seem to be using the same attacks/tactics they complained about being used against them. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, all you have to do is look at the attacks against Christians who honestly believe what they believe in this instance...the same tactic of mocking and threatening of ostracism is being used that was used against other groups in the past (i.e. believe what we think you should believe or else). Wars have been started that way, entire groups of people have been attacked for similar reasons...and when power shifts happen again, the cycle will continue. Our government seems to work pretty much the same way, which is part of the reason we have what we have when one party takes control over the executive branch. What attacks against Christians? You mean the fairly innocuous statements calling them "bigots" or "ignorant"? And honestly I haven't even seen that much name calling, at least not on here, and not lately. Maybe once the gays start demanding that Christians aren't fit to be parents, that they shouldn't be allowed to marry, that they should be able to be fired because their "lifestyle" is so offensive and harmful, and start gathering out side churches with signs denouncing them as degenerates that deserve death, we can talk. Look, I don't actually ascribe to the notion that the Christians against same-sex marriage should be publicly ridiculed for having those beliefs. I don't see the value in it. They believe what they believe, just like I believe what I believe, no amount of dialogue is going to sway me, and the same may be true for them. I have better things to do than try to convince religious people their religious views are "wrong". As long as they don't interfere, believe what you will. However, it is a false equivalency to say that by demanding access to state granted rights and benefits, and being rightfully angry about people trying to deny them those rights, based on personal beliefs, is somehow akin to the persecution gays have historically suffered at the hands of religious belief.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 11:00:30 GMT -5
Interesting note... here's the oath that County Clerks swear to in Tennessee: Note the bolded. This is the oath the clerks that are quitting took, back when they took office. ETA: You would not believe how long it took to find that! What's your point? They did not violate their oath. They did the right thing and they resigned. It is unfortunate that their state did not stand up to the ruling instead of ceding their sovereign rights and upholding the Constitution against abuse by the SCOTUS-- which is every state's and every citizen's duty. However, if they don't- then the option is to resign, and that's what they did. let me get this right. defying the SCOTUS is our sovereign duty? since when?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 11:01:16 GMT -5
Of course there is. Quit being silly. where is it so written?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 11:02:05 GMT -5
How is marriage religious? It's a legal contract whether performed by the state or religious representative that enables those to be legally responsible for another / get a tax break That is civil marriage. I have no issue with people agreeing to anything non-violent-- a contract. That's fine. And government plays a role. However, all the benefits, etc. are not something I'm particularly interested in seeing the government dole out benefits in favor of one contract or other. then you should be fine with gay marriage. i believe that you have already said you are.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 11:05:29 GMT -5
I'm really not sure what you are attempting to say here? Basically, in this particular case (although it can be used in pretty much any other case of a power shift) when Christians are in power and push beliefs on other people, those groups complain about the tactics/attacks used against them; and with the power shifting, those same people/groups seem to be using the same attacks/tactics they complained about being used against them. that is because of the separation clause. we don't want to live in a religious state. neither did the founders.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 11:09:43 GMT -5
I would have to disagree here. I can only speak for my own Christian self when I say that being called a "bigot" or "ignorant" is most certainly NOT fairly innocuous.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jul 7, 2015 11:18:34 GMT -5
I would have to disagree here. I can only speak for my own Christian self when I say that being called a "bigot" or "ignorant" is most certainly NOT fairly innocuous. Fair enough. It is also not untrue in all cases. I am not by any means saying all Christians against same-sex marriage are either bigots or ignorant, however, some surely are. I still rank what is essentially name calling a much less egregious offense than actually working to bar equal rights.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 11:33:22 GMT -5
Unfortunately, you are right. It isn't untrue in all cases. Just most...in my experience. I would also agree that name-calling isn't as bad as denying someone their civil rights. It's still not the right thing to do. I've never heard a person use the defense of....well......I stole but it was only a candy bar - not a car....and have it work. Wrong is wrong. And if we are going to rage against "wrong", we better damn well try to do "right" ourselves.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jul 7, 2015 11:34:48 GMT -5
Although words can hurt, it hurts less than discrimination. Bullying clearly crosses the line
Kudos to anyone who quits a job asking them to do something against their beliefs. I did so twice:
(1) couldn't work in a clinic providing abortions for reasons other than medical necessity
(2) couldn't work for a county that required coverage prior to seeing someone in clinic. Not cost effective to send them to ER (for client or county)
Also won't work for a guns right group. I'm registered Republican but believe only cops / military should bear arms. Constitution guarantees others right to do so, so I have to suck it up there.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 11:35:58 GMT -5
I've never heard a person use the defense of....well......I stole but it was only a candy bar - not a car....and have it work.
it depends on what you mean by "work". the entire legal system is structured differently for those two crimes.
Wrong is wrong. And if we are going to rage against "wrong", we better damn well try to do "right" ourselves. no, there are absolutely "degrees of wrong". stealing candy is not really even comparable to grand theft auto.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 11:37:21 GMT -5
Yes....there are degrees of wrong....no question. I believe I said that in a prior post. But guess what they all have in common?
They are wrong.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jul 7, 2015 11:38:06 GMT -5
I agree. I think it is generally the fringe that spews the type of vitriol that would typically be labeled bigotry/ignorance. And that holds true for both sides. I often have cause to shake my head at some of what I consider to be the far left comes up with regarding religion.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jul 7, 2015 11:38:37 GMT -5
I've never heard a person use the defense of....well......I stole but it was only a candy bar - not a car....and have it work. [JAVERT] Now bring me prisoner 24601 Your time is up And your parole’s begun You know what that means. [VALJEAN] Yes, it means I’m free. [JAVERT] No! It means you get Your yellow ticket-of-leave You are a thief [VALJEAN] I stole a loaf of bread. [JAVERT] You robbed a house. [VALJEAN] I broke a window pane. My sister’s child was close to death And we were starving. [JAVERT] You will starve again Unless you learn the meaning of the law. [VALJEAN] I know the meaning of those 19 years A slave of the law
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jul 7, 2015 11:39:10 GMT -5
I've never heard a person use the defense of....well......I stole but it was only a candy bar - not a car....and have it work.
it depends on what you mean by "work". the entire legal system is structured differently for those two crimes.
Wrong is wrong. And if we are going to rage against "wrong", we better damn well try to do "right" ourselves. no, there are absolutely "degrees of wrong". stealing candy is not really even comparable to grand theft auto. Misdemeanor (under $500) vs Felony. That's why a lot of CA judges reduce charges to misdemeanors to circumvent the 3 strikes rule. A candy bar / loaf of bread DN EQUAL bank / car / rape / sa
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 11:44:34 GMT -5
Yes....there are degrees of wrong....no question. I believe I said that in a prior post. But guess what they all have in common?
They are wrong. groan. ok. fine.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 11:46:32 GMT -5
So....what exactly are you people arguing? That some "wrongs" are "right"? I'm not sure I get it. Some "wrongs" are ok? My example wasn't to be taken literally in regards to the punishment phase of a trial - only to say that because you stole less than someone else doesn't make you not guilty of theft. So what is the argument here? Are you trying to say that you think some "wrongs" are just acceptable because they aren't quite as bad as other "wrongs"?
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 11:50:04 GMT -5
Yes....there are degrees of wrong....no question. I believe I said that in a prior post. But guess what they all have in common?
They are wrong. groan. ok. fine.
Why do you do that? Why is it necessary?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 11:57:38 GMT -5
Why do you do that?
do what? concede the argument?
Why is it necessary?
you would prefer that i just argue on indefinitely for no reason whatsoever?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 12:01:45 GMT -5
So....what exactly are you people arguing? That some "wrongs" are "right"? I'm not sure I get it. Some "wrongs" are ok? My example wasn't to be taken literally in regards to the punishment phase of a trial - only to say that because you stole less than someone else doesn't make you not guilty of theft. So what is the argument here? Are you trying to say that you think some "wrongs" are just acceptable because they aren't quite as bad as other "wrongs"? speaking for myself, i tend to think of discriminating speech differently than i think of workforce and consumer discrimination. in the former case, you might get your feelings hurt. and yes, that is a "sin". but there are two things i have to say about that. first is that you are responsible for your feelings, not me. YOU. if you get hurt, that is something YOU can do something about. YOUR hurt. you can lash out. you can forgive. you can learn to cope with it. but there is no PHYSICAL harm done by some idiot insulting you. in the latter case, there is real, tangible, physical harm. this is why the "free speech" of a baker (it is not actually speech, but that is how some are thinking of it) does not trump the consumer rights of the public. there is real harm done in the latter case. it is not just about "feelings". clear enough? edit: if not, we can use your example. if a 15 year old kid steals a candy bar, the grocer's livelihood will not be threatened. if the same 15 year old steals his CAR, however, the grocer might not be able to make it to work. he might not be able to take his ailing wife or child to the hospital. he might not be able to run a mortgage payment to the bank and beat a foreclosure. that is REAL harm. not candy bar harm.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 12:21:16 GMT -5
I agree and I have said so. As for the rest, you don't get to decide what harm I feel when someone accuses me of something that simply isn't true. Shrugging it off as "hurt feelings" is fine....as long as we do the same thing when we hear the "N" word or the "F" word or any other of those nasty things people say. You don't get to say what harms people and neither do I. Harm doesn't have to be physical to cause damage. You are giving those ugly people who use words as weapons a pass. I simply don't agree. So....we aren't on the same page. I can live with that.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 12:25:30 GMT -5
That one candy bar might not threaten his livelihood and his ability to support his family, but 1000 thefts of that candy bar might - even if each one only costs him $1.00 each. In any event, the kid is STILL guilty of theft. Which is still wrong.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 14:05:04 GMT -5
I agree and I have said so. As for the rest, you don't get to decide what harm I feel when someone accuses me of something that simply isn't true. Shrugging it off as "hurt feelings" is fine....as long as we do the same thing when we hear the "N" word or the "F" word or any other of those nasty things people say. You don't get to say what harms people and neither do I. Harm doesn't have to be physical to cause damage. You are giving those ugly people who use words as weapons a pass. I simply don't agree. So....we aren't on the same page. I can live with that. GEL- i specifically said that i was speaking for myself. IN MY OPINION, you are responsible for your feelings of insult. if you don't feel that way, that's perfectly fine. but i would also add that our legal system is set up the same way. unless the words cause you FINANCIAL HARM (ie, slander, libel) OR they are associated with another crime (ie rape, murder), you are not going to get any recompense for them. i am sorry, but that is just how it works. but you are correct- i won't be deciding that. the courts will. edit: by the way- i never claimed that words don't cause harm. words can destroy lives. i have witnessed it. a teenage girl with a weight problem being called fat might commit suicide because of it. but you are missing my point. my point is that these things are not treated the same IN LAW, nor should they be. so, you CLAIMING that i am determining harms for others is nonsense. please stop it. you are hurting my feelings.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,130
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 7, 2015 14:06:15 GMT -5
That one candy bar might not threaten his livelihood and his ability to support his family, but 1000 thefts of that candy bar might - even if each one only costs him $1.00 each. In any event, the kid is STILL guilty of theft. Which is still wrong. red herring. you didn't say 1000 candy bar thefts. you said one. you are moving the goalposts, which is also wrong.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 7, 2015 14:17:01 GMT -5
I've never been in a financial position to quit because of my beliefs. I applaud the fact that, one, they are, which means they are good YM'ers, and two, they could have kept their jobs, grumbling and glaring under the breath, but chose to take the high road and leave rather than do what they felt was wrong, to them. At least they aren't hypocrites. I agree, I respect them for doing the right thing and quitting, if they couldn't fulfill their position without violating their religious beliefs. I am certain there were also some Southern clerks who quit when required to begin marrying interracial couples for the same reasons. Our government was purposefully set up without an official religion, and all government agents must be able to fulfill the duties of their jobs to the best of their ability. If their personal religious views get in the way of that, they need to find a different job.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 7, 2015 14:34:56 GMT -5
Agreed there wouldn't probably be any restitution in a court of law for name-calling. That still doesn't make it ok. We are at an impasse. I keep saying "wrong" is "wrong" (and have said from the beginning there are certain degrees of "wrong") and you keep arguing that isn't so. I don't think we are going to reach any kind of agreement! I'm taking from your post that you base your opinion on whether "harm" occurred/did not occur based on whether or not a judge would order some sort of restitution if the incident was brought before the court?
Please say "yes".
|
|