(October 18, 2011 at 9:05 am)lucent Wrote: She has a right to protection under the law and shouldn't be forced to violate her moral standards. It's ironic you would decry her religious freedom under the law by forcing her to violate her ethics for gay rights.

Her freedom of religion is only to follow whatever fairtale she chooses.

It does not allow her to impose it on others, which is what she is doing here.

I notice you didn't respond to my question either

There is something to indicate she is incapable of doing her job: THE FACT THAT SHE REFUSES TO DO PART OF IT.

'There is nothing to indicate that she is incapable of doing her job.'

Except her horrible prejudices.

(October 18, 2011 at 8:56 am)ElDinero Wrote:

(October 18, 2011 at 8:31 am)lucent Wrote: That isn't the point. You agree to court mandated freedoms for a chosen lifestyle by transgenders, but dispute that a religious person with a moral objection based on their chosen religion should also be protected by law. She has every right under the law to object to a duty which compromises her moral standards, and the state is required to accomodate her. Just as employers in California are required to accomodate their employees to dress up as the opposite gender because they choose to live that way. Basically, what you're saying is, no one should legally be accomodated for their religious beliefs, yet you have no trouble mandating that legal protection for other beliefs and lifestyles. In short, hypocripsy. Your position is simply one of your own deep seated bias.

It's entirely the point, you silly prick. We're talking about someone refusing to do part of the job that they are under contract to do. What if you needed a blood transfusion and the doctor said he wouldn't perform it because his religion was opposed to them? Would you still be hopping around telling us all about his religious freedom then? No, because you'd be fucking dead.

There isn't a contrast between stamping a marriage application and a life or death situation. I would agree that if someone has a religious objection which could threaten someones life they shouldn't necessariy be protected under the law, which is why there is this provision in the civil rights act which prohibts:

denying a requested reasonable accommodation of an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof –if an accommodation will not impose more than a de minimis cost or burden on business operations;

I am inclined to say that this burden is not unreasonable and easily remedied. As I just stated, she has other work, and she indicated in the video that someone else could handle these applications. It the burden of the government to accomodate her.

And what if all the clerks express the same reservation and refuse to sign them?

(October 18, 2011 at 9:09 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(October 18, 2011 at 9:05 am)lucent Wrote: She has a right to protection under the law and shouldn't be forced to violate her moral standards. It's ironic you would decry her religious freedom under the law by forcing her to violate her ethics for gay rights.

Her freedom of religion is only to follow whatever fairtale she chooses.

It does not allow her to impose it on others, which is what she is doing here.

I notice you didn't respond to my question either

Her religious freedom is protected under law in the work place. It allows her to be reasonably accomodated:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

As for your example, I wouldn't sincerely care if anyone denied me service because of a deeply held religious belief. I would simply find service elsewhere.

(October 18, 2011 at 9:15 am)lucent Wrote: There isn't a contrast between stamping a marriage application and a life or death situation. I would agree that if someone has a religious objection which could threaten someones life they shouldn't necessariy be protected under the law, which is why there is this provision in the civil rights act which prohibts:

denying a requested reasonable accommodation of an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof –if an accommodation will not impose more than a de minimis cost or burden on business operations;

I am inclined to say that this burden is not unreasonable and easily remedied. As I just stated, she has other work, and she indicated in the video that someone else could handle these applications. It the burden of the government to accomodate her.

Again I ask, if a muslim clerk refused to deal with you because of the crucifix around your neck how would you react?

(October 18, 2011 at 9:18 am)ElDinero Wrote: And what if all the clerks express the same reservation and refuse to sign them?

It is the governments job to provide service..they would either have to hire someone else or decide that they could no longer reasonably accomodate this request.

(October 18, 2011 at 9:21 am)lucent Wrote:

(October 18, 2011 at 9:09 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(October 18, 2011 at 9:05 am)lucent Wrote: She has a right to protection under the law and shouldn't be forced to violate her moral standards. It's ironic you would decry her religious freedom under the law by forcing her to violate her ethics for gay rights.

Her freedom of religion is only to follow whatever fairtale she chooses.

It does not allow her to impose it on others, which is what she is doing here.

I notice you didn't respond to my question either

Her religious freedom is protected under law in the work place. It allows her to be reasonably accomodated:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

As for your example, I wouldn't sincerely care if anyone denied me service because of a deeply held religious belief. I would simply find service elsewhere.

Like fuck you would, you'd be up on your christian high horse hollering religious persecution for the whole world to hear, even more so if it was a evil atheist that refused you service.

'As for your example, I wouldn't sincerely care if anyone denied me service because of a deeply held religious belief. I would simply find service elsewhere.'

What a laughable crock of shit. If I refused to stamp your marriage certificate because your a Christian nutjob and I'm a atheist who says your beliefs are evil, you'd kick up a stink.