• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which of the following hypothetical public employees should be fired?

Select all that apply

  • A clerk that refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple because they are a Christian.

    Votes: 50 92.6%

  • A clerk that refuses to issue a permit to a slaughterhouse because they are a Buddhist.

    Votes: 50 92.6%

  • A clerk that refuses to issue a liquor license because they are a Muslim.

    Votes: 52 96.3%

  • A clerk that refuses to issue a drilling permit because they are a wiccan.

    Votes: 49 90.7%
  • Total voters
    54
Gardener said:
In calling her a "leftist", I'm reminded of some of the extreme socialist types who call anybody a "right winger" if they are anything short of Che Guevara.

Such reactions have more to do with where the accuser stands in the political spectrum than the target.
Click to expand...

I have generally found people on this forum who have branded me a leftie to be ignorant and rude. Emotive labels just close down debate because you can't debate with self-respect against such people. "Civility a must".
 
WCH said:
Tell that to the bakers, the venue operators, the printers, the pizza place owners etc that have been intentionally targeted by the homosexual community. Everyone of them was directly affected because of their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I will because they lost no religious freedom or right. Can you tell us what rights and freedoms they lost? No matter how many lies are told religious freedom hasn't be impacted.
 
LaylaWindu said:
I will because they lost no religious freedom or right. Can you tell us what rights and freedoms they lost? No matter how many lies are told religious freedom hasn't be impacted.
Click to expand...

It is astounding how stupid some people act, isn't it? How could anyone miss the religious repression in the laws and court decisions? Or do you think these people are lying, when they say there is no infringement?
 
joG said:
It is astounding how stupid some people act, isn't it? How could anyone miss the religious repression in the laws and court decisions? Or do you think these people are lying, when they say there is no infringement?
Click to expand...

People who understand rights miss them because there are none, that's actually the opposite of stupid hahahah Yes the idea that this infringes on rights is astoundingly stupid especially since nobody can ever back that hogwash up. And yes they are laying or ignorant of the situation and the facts prove it. I noticed you didn't list the rights they lost, why? Feel free to list them. I've said it many times and even dedicated threads to it. It's a crap claim to say there's an infringement and rights lost. I'm a Christian and I've lost nothing at all based on this. The rights I had before these recent events and the rights I have now are the same.
 
All of them except the Christian and same sex marriage, at least not now. The law should be in effect for 3 years and then, if they at that moment refuse it, or get hired after the same sex marriage law has come into effect, then yes, they can be fired.

The rest of them knew or should have known that those things could be asked of them in their job as civil servant and refusing to do their job should be grounds for dismissal.
 
LaylaWindu said:
People who understand rights miss them because there are none, that's actually the opposite of stupid hahahah Yes the idea that this infringes on rights is astoundingly stupid especially since nobody can ever back that hogwash up. And yes they are laying or ignorant of the situation and the facts prove it. I noticed you didn't list the rights they lost, why? Feel free to list them. I've said it many times and even dedicated threads to it. It's a crap claim to say there's an infringement and rights lost. I'm a Christian and I've lost nothing at all based on this. The rights I had before these recent events and the rights I have now are the same.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a perfect demonstration of New-Bigotry. Thank you. You're act is perfect!
 
joG said:
Well, that is a perfect demonstration of New-Bigotry. Thank you. You're act is perfect!
Click to expand...

That's what I thought you can't support the hyperbolic lies in your post so you deflect. Why not just list these rights that are lost and prove me wrong? It's because you can't. Now lick your wounds and limp away or make the beating even worse.
 
Peter King said:
All of them except the Christian and same sex marriage, at least not now. The law should be in effect for 3 years and then, if they at that moment refuse it, or get hired after the same sex marriage law has come into effect, then yes, they can be fired.

The rest of them knew or should have known that those things could be asked of them in their job as civil servant and refusing to do their job should be grounds for dismissal.
Click to expand...

That is the reverse of the constitutional limitation on Congressional powers. Congress is not allowed to pass the law that puts the employee in the impossible situation.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
OK, this is a multiple choice, so select all that you feel applies. Which of the hypothetical public employees should be fire or moved to a different position for not doing their job?
Click to expand...

Is it that you haven't read the Amendment or did you just decide to forget the wording? Or is it that you do not understand, what the words mean?
 
LaylaWindu said:
That's what I thought you can't support the hyperbolic lies in your post so you deflect. Why not just list these rights that are lost and prove me wrong? It's because you can't. Now lick your wounds and limp away or make the beating even worse.
Click to expand...

It is a cool trick to ask people to "list" the obvious. Waste their time, huh? But to tell you the truth, if you really do not know, it is because you refuse to. So anything anyone says will be wasted on you. That's how bigotry has always worked. I don't think I should let you waste my time.
 
joG said:
It is a cool trick to ask people to "list" the obvious. Waste their time, huh? But to tell you the truth, if you really do not know, it is because you refuse to. So anything anyone says will be wasted on you. That's how bigotry has always worked. I don't think I should let you waste my time.
Click to expand...

So you can't that's what I thought and the beat down continues. Thank you for proving me right and showing everybody here a list can't be made because it doesn't exists. Happy trails. Good move to run away from further loss.
 
Nursmate said:
I work in two industries where my salary is paid by tax dollars...education and healthcare. I do not get a choice of who I service. If a full blown ISIS member happened to be on my shift at the hospital...I would be fired and my license would be impacted if I refused to care for them. This is no different.
Click to expand...
You're wading into complex territory. On the one hand, many people like me say that you should have the right to refuse to work on conscientious grounds, but also you have the right not to be refused a service on discriminatory grounds. So if someone says - it goes against my conscience to provide medical care to an ISIS member, this needs a correct analysis.

Religious objection grounds are not usually on the basis of pure antipathy towards a certain person or group per se e.g. I won't serve tea to Muslims full stop because they are Muslims. Most Western countries rightly treat this as discrimination and do not accept the validity of such a conscientious objection. However, where one's objection is a genuine one and relates to a principle, not people per se, then it's a feature of the democratic respect for minority rights that liberal societies should accommodate these objections, if possible.
 
LaylaWindu said:
So you can't that's what I thought and the beat down continues. Thank you for proving me right and showing everybody here a list can't be made because it doesn't exists. Happy trails. Good move to run away from further loss.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between inability and refusal to waste time on someone that obviously is disinterested in fact and logic.
 
joG said:
There is a difference between inability and refusal to waste time on someone that obviously is disinterested in fact and logic.
Click to expand...

Anything you post that is not an accurate list is another black eye for your posts.
Now man up or continue your beating, list please. Thanks
 
Nursmate said:
I work in two industries where my salary is paid by tax dollars...education and healthcare. I do not get a choice of who I service. If a full blown ISIS member happened to be on my shift at the hospital...I would be fired and my license would be impacted if I refused to care for them. This is no different.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference and a few small ones. And it is really quite obvious.
 
joG said:
That is the reverse of the constitutional limitation on Congressional powers. Congress is not allowed to pass the law that puts the employee in the impossible situation.
Click to expand...

It is not an impossible situation, but they should not be fired yet because they need time to adjust or to make a vertical transfer to another job with the same employer.

And impossible situation? They are not there to make a judgement over whom they give a marriage license to. They are to review whether or not the 2 people in front of them are legally allowed to marry, plain and simple. They are not approving their marriage, they are certifying that there are no legal obstacles to their marriage.

It is not like they are going to personally have to wed the 2.
 
Peter King said:
It is not an impossible situation, but they should not be fired yet because they need time to adjust or to make a vertical transfer to another job with the same employer.

And impossible situation? They are not there to make a judgement over whom they give a marriage license to. They are to review whether or not the 2 people in front of them are legally allowed to marry, plain and simple. They are not approving their marriage, they are certifying that there are no legal obstacles to their marriage.

It is not like they are going to personally have to wed the 2.
Click to expand...

No. If we want Congress to be allowed to pass laws that infringe on citizens' freedom of religious practice, then we should change the First Amendmen and not do it on the sly.

And yes, they are not there to pass judgement. But Congress is not allowed to pass a law that infringes on their religious practice.
 
joG said:
Is it that you haven't read the Amendment or did you just decide to forget the wording? Or is it that you do not understand, what the words mean?
Click to expand...

Is it that you haven't read the definition of Obtuse or did you decide to forget the meaning? Or is it that you do not understand, what the term means?

I assuming you are referring the first amendment. Neither the federal judiciary, or any reasonable person for that matter, agrees with your implied interpretation. No one is telling these employees how they can express themselves on their own time, nor are they being told what religion they can or cannot follow. Instead they are simply being told to do their job. You freedom of religion and expression has never extended so far as to allow you to exercise it such a way that it prevents you from meeting the core responsibilities of your job.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Is it that you haven't read the definition of Obtuse or did you decide to forget the meaning? Or is it that you do not understand, what the term means?

I assuming you are referring the first amendment. Neither the federal judiciary, or any reasonable person for that matter, agrees with your implied interpretation. No one is telling these employees how they can express themselves on their own time, nor are they being told what religion they can or cannot follow. Instead they are simply being told to do their job. You freedom of religion and expression has never extended so far as to allow you to exercise it such a way that it prevents you from meeting the core responsibilities of your job.
Click to expand...

Very, verygiod! You were able to find out which Amendment is the relevant one. Oh, and yes! That is a very impressive word you looked up. I was very impressed, indeed. As to the rest?
From what I have read the issue is quite divisive and your not having noticed it or saying it is not makes me think that you are uninterested in anything you do not want to hear.
 
LaylaWindu said:
I will because they lost no religious freedom or right. Can you tell us what rights and freedoms they lost? No matter how many lies are told religious freedom hasn't be impacted.
Click to expand...

They are being forced by law or penalty to associate with what they consider EVIL.

That takes away their right to freely practice their religion.
 
WCH said:
They are being forced by law or penalty to associate with what they consider EVIL.
Click to expand...


NO there is no force unless I didn't get the memo yet? As a christian am I going to get word that I must open up a baker and must bake cakes for gays against my will?
Also the question is what religious rights and freedoms were lost, please list them, thank you.
 
LaylaWindu said:
NO there is no force unless I didn't get the memo yet? As a christian am I going to get word that I must open up a baker and must bake cakes for gays against my will?
Also the question is what religious rights and freedoms were lost, please list them, thank you.
Click to expand...

I can't help your ignorance.
 
WCH said:
They are being forced by law or penalty to associate with what they consider EVIL.

That takes away their right to freely practice their religion.
Click to expand...

As is the racist restaurant owner who thinks black people are evil but still has to serve them anyway. You poor, poor victims.

I don't recall Jesus ever asking people he fed if they were gay or not first. In fact, I'd say he purposely sought out the worst sinners. Your indignation and hatred has no biblical basis whatsoever.
 
joG said:
No. If we want Congress to be allowed to pass laws that infringe on citizens' freedom of religious practice, then we should change the First Amendmen and not do it on the sly.

And yes, they are not there to pass judgement. But Congress is not allowed to pass a law that infringes on their religious practice.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Congress is not allowed to pass a law that specifically targets a particular religious practice or religion. It would be impossible to not make laws that never infringe on someone's religious practices because people have all sorts of religious practices. Some people feel women should not be able to be in charge of men, so having laws that explicitly work toward equal employment opportunities for men and women, placing women in charge of men in public offices or positions, easily violates the religious practices/beliefs of some people. But there is no issue there with conflict with the Constitution because the law is not directly targeting any single religious practice or belief. The "infringement" is collateral to the purpose of the law itself.
 
WCH said:
They are being forced by law or penalty to associate with what they consider EVIL.

That takes away their right to freely practice their religion.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. And even if you said it violated their religious beliefs, that violation is still collateral to the reason for the law, and therefore not unconstitutional at all. It would be the same type of "violation" that existed for many other laws that "force" people to interact with others that they may consider sinners or wrong or just in a way that they consider morally wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom