Dear Theist: Do Your Job or Find Another

[lucent]

I found this article on the blog Skepchick.

"You know, I get that it’s a tough economy out there. Lots of people are taking jobs that aren’t necessarily optimal, like working at a fast food joint, cooking meth, or making YouTube videos. And not everyone is able to choose a job that is 100% in line with his or her morals, like a vegetarian flipping burgers, an ex-DEA agent cooking meth, or a normal human being making YouTube videos.

Or like a fundamentalist Christian who is a town clerk in New York, where same-sex marriage was recently made legal.

That’s right, there are people in New York who are refusing to approve the marriage licenses of same-sex couples because of “religious freedom.” Here’s one now!"

Full article here.

Did you somehow miss the part when she said that she just wants to be exempted from this particular duty? It's a simple issue with a simple solution: give the task to someone with no moral objection. It is an issue of religious freedom, and if the government refuses to exempt her, they are to blame. If you think this is unreasonable, do you feel that transgender people should be able to dress as women at work, as the law states in California?

[Erinome]

I think she should be exempted from all of her duties. I also think that transgenders should be able to wear whatever makes them comfortable at work or anywhere else. I think it's stupid that people make big deals out of things that don't hurt anyone.

[lucent]

I think she should be exempted from all of her duties. I also think that transgenders should be able to wear whatever makes them comfortable at work or anywhere else. I think it's stupid that people make big deals out of things that don't hurt anyone.

So transgenders should have freedom of expression mandated by law, but the law protecting religious freedoms is invalid. And this isn't hypocripsy, how?

[ElDinero]

What part of the job is affected by the clothing someone wears? And now which part of the job is affected by refusing to do part of the job? Come on, let's get there together sweetheart.

[Erinome]

Does wearing a dress to work make a transgender incapable of doing their job?

You know it doesn't.

This self-righteous christian bigot has allowed her religious beliefs to lead her down a road of insubordination. If her required duties offend her religious sensibilities, perhaps she should be a grownup about it and look for work elsewhere. I am sure there is a gay hating church around there somewhere who would be glad to have her as their poster boy/girl.

[lucent]

Does wearing a dress to work make a transgender incapable of doing their job?

You know it doesn't.

This self-righteous christian bigot has allowed her religious beliefs to lead her down a road of insubordination. If her required duties offend her religious sensibilities, perhaps she should be a grownup about it and look for work elsewhere. I am sure there is a gay hating church around there somewhere who would be glad to have her as their poster boy/girl.

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.

[KichigaiNeko]

Does wearing a dress to work make a transgender incapable of doing their job?

You know it doesn't.

This self-righteous christian bigot has allowed her religious beliefs to lead her down a road of insubordination. If her required duties offend her religious sensibilities, perhaps she should be a grownup about it and look for work elsewhere. I am sure there is a gay hating church around there somewhere who would be glad to have her as their poster boy/girl.

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.

You are in error luce....

The point is that this person's job is compromised by their religious freedom to the point that this person is incapable to do their job. Bottom line is find a job that is in keeping with their religious freedom and allow others their religious human rights freedoms.

Stop blaming everything on atheists, your own bias is detrimental to your arguments.

[Zen Badger]

Does wearing a dress to work make a transgender incapable of doing their job?

You know it doesn't.

This self-righteous christian bigot has allowed her religious beliefs to lead her down a road of insubordination. If her required duties offend her religious sensibilities, perhaps she should be a grownup about it and look for work elsewhere. I am sure there is a gay hating church around there somewhere who would be glad to have her as their poster boy/girl.

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.

If a muslim clerk in that organization refused to deal with you because you were wearing a crucifix around your neck and they claimed a religiously based moral objection to that, would you accept that or complain to the clerks supervisor?

[ElDinero]

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.

[lucent]

Does wearing a dress to work make a transgender incapable of doing their job?

You know it doesn't.

This self-righteous christian bigot has allowed her religious beliefs to lead her down a road of insubordination. If her required duties offend her religious sensibilities, perhaps she should be a grownup about it and look for work elsewhere. I am sure there is a gay hating church around there somewhere who would be glad to have her as their poster boy/girl.

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.

You are in error luce....

The point is that this person's job is compromised by their religious freedom to the point that this person is incapable to do their job. Bottom line is find a job that is in keeping with their religious freedom and allow others their religious human rights freedoms.

Stop blaming everything on atheists, your own bias is detrimental to your arguments.

There is nothing to indicate that she is incapable of doing her job. Presumably, there is other work besides working with same sex marriage applications, which she was hired to do before the law was implemented. The indication was that this work could easily be assigned to someone else.

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.