Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > redrockrascal > My Blog |
Circumventing the SCOTUS ruling
|
Circumventing the SCOTUS ruling If you refused to perform the duties of your job what would happen to you? There are anti-equality types now talking about ways to get around the SCOTUS marriage ruling. They have said that government employees who have a religious objection to performing a same-sex marriage should not have to. That is correct they should not have to – people do have a right to refuse to do something that is against their religious beliefs. On the other hand, there is a principle that the USA was founded upon called – the separation of church and state. In other words religion should have no say in the operation or official processes of this country. Some questions to consider: Why is religion becoming part of any government process? Do we really want people working for our governments who don’t believe in its core values? Should people who cannot perform their government jobs because of religious reasons have been hired to do that job? If you refused to do something that is part of the duties of the job you signed up to do what would happen to you? Would you have even been offered the job? Another question that comes to my mind is – why are there government employees being hired for a position where they likely could refuse to carry out one of the job’s basic duties? I see this as an indication of how poor managers politicians are. Are these politicians the people we really want running a town or a state – I don’t. There are 2 simple solutions to this “problem”. 1) Governments should improve their hiring practices – don’t hire people who will refuse to do the job they were hired to do. 2) Voters should put more thought into who they hire/elect. Your questions, answers or comments (agreeing or disagreeing in a respectful way) are encouraged and welcome. When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. |
|||
|
 hugsssssssss VBecome a blog watcher sweet_vm
| ||
|
My post specifically addressed “performing the duties”. The word ceremonies or ceremony does not appear on what I wrote. Judges and Justices of the Peace perform marriages – they are government employees. Clerks are being told they don’t have to issue licenses for religious objections in TX and LA, maybe others it is evolving. The issue here is not about any private company or party – strictly about government employees. When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
| ||
|
Though we are certainly not up on it, but we thought in Canada as a part and parcel of legalization of same sex marriage, that organized religions were exempt from performing same sex marriages. For example a Roman Catholic diocese would not be compelled to perform the marriage ceremony. However, if you are a Justice of the Peace, working for the state, you can not refuse on individual religious grounds. We assumed the US system would be the same. Maybe thats not entrenched yet as if we remember correctly, it was a legislated vote of Canadian Parliament, ergo a fully encompassing same sex legislation was voted on as opposed to a court ruling that might leave gaps. What we find curious about the current US experience, is the polarization of society on religious values. So on one hand there is the Muslim religion. And it seems it is easily denigrated - in Canada too - yet Christians seem to deem every social liberalization as an attack on them - and yet, they would begrudge conservative social Muslim values. Even when they align with the Christian right. It would seem that if the US, or frankly any country, truly to a person, held any real concept of pure religious beliefs, a basic tenet which would be to be pious, then one would not feel the least put out, being part of joyful moment in another's life, or providing their best level of professionalism in the course of their job to another human being, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or differing religious views....but alas...this is the last bastion of permissible bigotry - I cant refuse or deny you service or personal liberty because I think you are a cock sucking, butt fucking, diseased carrying faggot...no, I deny you because it conflicts with my religious values....values I likely do not actually practice. Recently seen a documentary on Loving v. Virginia...it was both shocking and sad...and there are wonderful documentaries on US couples seeking same sex marriage..and their stories are no less poignant. Frankly, we do not know why anyone would want to stand in the way of someone else happiness.....but then we also enjoy cock sucking and butt fucking.... 
| ||
|
Marriages and the paperwork (licenses) done in the state/county are official duties of various local government officials (judges, clerks, etc.). Correct performing marriages is not a safety/legality issue. See my response above that is what is being suggested they refuse to do. This is not about private sector or clergy employers – it is about the government employees. Hope this helps. When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
| ||
|
Let's for a minute try to look at this issue from an employer/employee relations angle: Let's say I'm an employer and I have an employee who refuses to perform a certain task that is part of his/her job. What should be my course of action? As an employer, I have a right to demand that all of my employers perform all of the tasks assigned to them. If they are incapable or if they refuse to do their job adequately, I have a right to let them go and replace them with capable and willing employees. It is that simple. When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
| ||
|
Let's for a minute try to look at this issue from an employer/employee relations angle: Let's say I'm an employer and I have an employee who refuses to perform a certain task that is part of his/her job. What should be my course of action? As an employer, I have a right to demand that all of my employers perform all of the tasks assigned to them. If they are incapable or if they refuse to do their job adequately, I have a right to let them go and replace them with capable and willing employees. It is that simple. Visit my blog It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World of NaughtyInSO, leave a comment, become a watcher. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LIVE AND LET LIVE Be happy! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| ||
|
Separation of church and state doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution. This phrase often gets misused. When the constitution was written, the concern was that you had several different denominations, so the big concern was making one denomination more powerful than the others. This suggestion that the founders intended the United States to be secular is simply revisionist history. To your specific point, you wouldn't be able to refuse to hire someone on religious grounds. It's illegal. Just look at the Abercrombie & Fitch case. Along with that, you have Article VI of the constitution, which states: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. It would be pretty easy to sue under that. As far as the separation of church and state goes read these 2 items: The Tripoli Treaty (1797) states that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. That treaty was submitted by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the US Senate. It thereby acknowledges and ratifies of the separation of church and state in the US. Article 6 of Constitution. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Yes the hiring issue would be difficult to overcome. One argument could be the church & state thing. When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
| ||
|
Separation of church and state doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution. This phrase often gets misused. When the constitution was written, the concern was that you had several different denominations, so the big concern was making one denomination more powerful than the others. This suggestion that the founders intended the United States to be secular is simply revisionist history. To your specific point, you wouldn't be able to refuse to hire someone on religious grounds. It's illegal. Just look at the Abercrombie & Fitch case. Along with that, you have Article VI of the constitution, which states: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. It would be pretty easy to sue under that.
|
Become a member to create a blog
