- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 11,511
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win
Just a couple of things...
#1 Do you support the right of individuals to claim a "moral conscience" (whether you disagree with it or not is irrelevant) and to hide behind that to discriminate against Blacks, or Mexicans, or Jews, or Women, or the disabled (remember the Muslim cab drivers refusing to take disabled people with service dogs?)? (Personally I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws so not "moral conscience" requirement would exist because as a private business they have rights of property and association that are usurped by PA laws.
#2 It's a matter between the employee and the employer if an individual refuses to perform their duties.
#3 I agree that religious organization should be able to operated based on their own principals (as long as the comply with basic heath and safety codes), that does not mean that they can expect to receive a contract from the state if they function in a discriminatory fashion. Boston Catholic Charities is one of the more famous instances. Some people assume that Catholic Charity adoption was shut down in Massachusetts, that is not correct. There are still plenty of Catholic Charities in MA that provide adoption services. The thing with Boston Catholic Charities is that they were under a $1,000,000 contract to the City to fund their services. Boston Catholic Charities was not forced to close their doors, they choose to close adoption services when they were told that if they were going to accept taxpayer funding then they could not discriminate against taxpayers.
>>>>
Good morning Lursa,
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Here's mine.
Our right to conscience makes up who were are as individuals. From our moral conscience we discern what is right and wrong. Often, but not always, this stems from religious beliefs. Most state constitutions recognize the importance of protecting a person's right to conscience as it is deeply tied to religious liberty. Some state governments have enacted conscience protection laws. In addition, federal law conditions receipt of certain federal funds on respect for conscience in particular situations. These protections reflect the high value a civil society places on religious and moral conscience. But we have to vigilantly protect them because there is an ever growing group of judges and legislators that do not respect the moral conscience of individuals resulting in this culture war we seem to be in the midst of. They seem to have this mentality that your moral conscience comes second or not at all when it comes to accommodation laws and in the end the one who is denied his moral conscience is the one that was discriminated against the most for he is not allowed to be who he is in the public square. This isn't just happening in regard to same sex marriage. The health care field is riddled with difficult moral issues including abortion, contraception, artificial reproductive technologies, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Health care providers with moral or religious objections to participating in these and other procedures face threats to conscience. The threats can be loss of a job for refusing to participate or be sued for denying a service that is against their moral conscience. Another area where moral conscience is being attacked is social welfare. Religious organizations such as adoption agencies, nursing homes or orphanages are forced to comply with the “official” state position on controversial moral issues, the potential for infringement of religious liberty and rights of conscience is clear as more and more of these organizations can not comply with the "official" state position for it is in conflict with their moral conscience and society ends up losing dearly with the loss of their services. While you see it solely as a discrimination issue toward the one denied a service you are more than willing to force another to deny his moral conscience in order to comply with what you think is right forcing him to a point of facing costly legal bills and losing his livelihood and unable to provide for his family. When a person is forced to compromise his moral conscience he has been denied the most important part of his freedom.
Just a couple of things...
#1 Do you support the right of individuals to claim a "moral conscience" (whether you disagree with it or not is irrelevant) and to hide behind that to discriminate against Blacks, or Mexicans, or Jews, or Women, or the disabled (remember the Muslim cab drivers refusing to take disabled people with service dogs?)? (Personally I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws so not "moral conscience" requirement would exist because as a private business they have rights of property and association that are usurped by PA laws.
#2 It's a matter between the employee and the employer if an individual refuses to perform their duties.
#3 I agree that religious organization should be able to operated based on their own principals (as long as the comply with basic heath and safety codes), that does not mean that they can expect to receive a contract from the state if they function in a discriminatory fashion. Boston Catholic Charities is one of the more famous instances. Some people assume that Catholic Charity adoption was shut down in Massachusetts, that is not correct. There are still plenty of Catholic Charities in MA that provide adoption services. The thing with Boston Catholic Charities is that they were under a $1,000,000 contract to the City to fund their services. Boston Catholic Charities was not forced to close their doors, they choose to close adoption services when they were told that if they were going to accept taxpayer funding then they could not discriminate against taxpayers.
>>>>