• 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
They knew the job requirements when they were hired. If they refuse to do their job, they should be removed, and someone else should take over. Unemployment is high - I'd bet there are several people who would love to have that job, who would actually do what they are hired to do.
 
tres borrachos said:
I already said if you're a one man show you need to do it or else be fired or reassigned.

My opinion is the same regardless of the situation. If someone else can do it, have the other person do it.
Click to expand...

So to kinda rephrase what I think your point is: if the office itself can operate properly with certain people being unwilling to do certain things, then there is no need to fire any one. Is that correct? If so, my followup would be: do you think the supervisors of the office should be able to fire people who refuse to do one of the jobs mentioned in the poll for religious reasons? That is, my question is not whether he should fire them, but whether he could fire them if he chose.
 
Redress said:
So to kinda rephrase what I think your point is: if the office itself can operate properly with certain people being unwilling to do certain things, then there is no need to fire any one. Is that correct? If so, my followup would be: do you think the supervisors of the office should be able to fire people who refuse to do one of the jobs mentioned in the poll for religious reasons? That is, my question is not whether he should fire them, but whether he could fire them if he chose.
Click to expand...

I can only answer for myself, and my answer is this. I don't believe in making my employees do something that they don't want to do for any personal reason if I have someone else to do the job. It isn't relevant to the buyer/end user who the person is who is stamping a license.
 
By the way, I never said employees should never be fired. I'm confused that people don't understand a simple concept.

If I had a Muslim employee who was a good employee and I know it would upset and hurt him to issue a liquor license, and I had 10 other people who could do it, what the hell is my reason to force him to do it?
 
soot said:
To be fair, and you'll see above that I'm agreeing with you in principal, in most municipalities it's the town clerk's job to process the marriage license and in most municipalities I've lived in there is a (singular) town clerk.

If the only option for the town is to either replace the clerk or undertake the expense to hire an assistant with no religious objections to anything (assuming that doing so is even financially feasible) I think you have to fire and replace the clerk.

If there is a stable of assistant clerks and the head clerk can farm out the work based on each subordinate's personal preferences then, sure, as you say, it is his or her right as the manager to do so.

But if the manager is the manager is the assistant, is the admin, is the intern....

And you're the mayor...

You gotta ****can the clerk and find someone who will do the job you need done.
Click to expand...

I made it clear that I am not talking about a one man operation nor about a situation where there is only one person who can fulfill the task.

For people to be salivating over the idea of firing someone is just appalling. So much for compassion. I find it disturbing.

If the town clerk is the only person who can give you a liquor license then you have to go above that person's head, it's up to whomever he/she works for to deal with it. These ridiculous hypotheticals always pop up and they are always finger in throat nauseating. People who have religious beliefs - and I'm not one of them - are not the boogeymen.
 
Anyone who, for any reason, religious or not, refuses to do the job that they were hired to do, deserves to be fired.
 
tres borrachos said:
I can only answer for myself, and my answer is this. I don't believe in making my employees do something that they don't want to do for any personal reason if I have someone else to do the job. It isn't relevant to the buyer/end user who the person is who is stamping a license.
Click to expand...

What if you had an employee that due to their personal bias refused to serve black people?
 
Ummm... where is the "all the above" option?

A government employee is not a business owner; he/she is hired to provide the services and preform the duties of the job. If the job is to issue a license, and the applicant has paid the fees and met all requirements of the law, then either the license must be issued, or the employee can resign and let someone else do the job.
 
What they should do is give it to another person who will process it or place it on hold until the next day when someone without objections can do it. The government can't refuse it, but the individual people working on it should be allowed to refuse on sincerely held religious objections so long as the service gets done by someone else.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
What if you had an employee that due to their personal bias refused to serve black people?
Click to expand...

What if I had an employee that due to their personal bias refused to serve white people? Get someone else to do it if I wanted to keep the employee and it didn't disrupt my office.
 
tres borrachos said:
What if I had an employee that due to their personal bias refused to serve white people? Get someone else to do it if I wanted to keep the employee and it didn't disrupt my office.
Click to expand...

I think the vast, vast majority of employers would fire an employee for refusing to serve a customer due to that person's race. I have never fired anyone working for me in my life, and I am pretty sure that one would be grounds for termination. Refusing to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, sex, or ethnicity is almost always grounds for termination and in the public sector it is every time.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think the vast, vast majority of employers would fire an employee for refusing to serve a customer due to that person's race. I have never fired anyone working for me in my life, and I am pretty sure that one would be grounds for termination. Refusing to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, sex, or ethnicity is almost always grounds for termination and in the public sector it is every time.
Click to expand...

And quite possibly a discrimination lawsuit.
 
digsbe said:
What they should do is give it to another person who will process it or place it on hold until the next day when someone without objections can do it. The government can't refuse it, but the individual people working on it should be allowed to refuse on sincerely held religious objections so long as the service gets done by someone else.
Click to expand...

But digs, why should they have to wait til the next day for something that they are legally allowed to have? Come on - in a government situation, you can't deny someone based on their beliefs. They knew the demands of the job when it was offered to them. In any other capacity, if someone failed to do their job just because they didn't want to, they'd be fired. I see no difference here.
 
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...

Either all of them or none of them depending upon your view.

I would break it down this way, if the clerks in these offices refuse but someone is always in the office who will sign one I don't care if that's the system,
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think the vast, vast majority of employers would fire an employee for refusing to serve a customer due to that person's race. I have never fired anyone working for me in my life, and I am pretty sure that one would be grounds for termination. Refusing to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, sex, or ethnicity is almost always grounds for termination and in the public sector it is every time.
Click to expand...

I think the vast majority of employers would fire an employee for refusing to serve any customer without a very good reason. The whole point of being in business in the first place is to serve customers and make money. Any employee of mine who refused to do his or her job for any reason would no longer be getting a paycheck. The only exception would be on an individual basis, where there was a good reason for not serving this particular customer, not against an entire class of customer.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think the vast, vast majority of employers would fire an employee for refusing to serve a customer due to that person's race. I have never fired anyone working for me in my life, and I am pretty sure that one would be grounds for termination. Refusing to serve someone due to their sexual orientation, sex, or ethnicity is almost always grounds for termination and in the public sector it is every time.
Click to expand...

So if it's grounds for termination, then what is the point of your silly hypotheticals if the "vast, vast majority" of employers would terminate the employees? Do you think there may be an epidemic of wiccans being in a position of being the sole permit providers for drillers? Do you think we have Christians all over the country just waiting for a chance to deny a couple a marriage certificate so they can see their name all over the news and internet and get death threats from strangers and have the righteous on DP call them bigots?
 
Cephus said:
I think the vast majority of employers would fire an employee for refusing to serve any customer without a very good reason. The whole point of being in business in the first place is to serve customers and make money. Any employee of mine who refused to do his or her job for any reason would no longer be getting a paycheck. The only exception would be on an individual basis, where there was a good reason for not serving this particular customer, not against an entire class of customer.
Click to expand...

For any reason?
 
Cephus said:
For any reason against a class of people. Individuals maybe. All black people, all gay people, all women, etc. no.
Click to expand...

That isn't the same thing as "for any reason".

I don't make blanket statements like that about my employees. I also don't relish the idea of firing a good employee for any reason.

I also know the odds of anyone's employees refusing to serve a class or color or sex of people is less likely than the odds of me waking up naked with Orlando Bloom.
 
tres borrachos said:
That isn't the same thing as "for any reason".

I don't make blanket statements like that about my employees. I also don't relish the idea of firing a good employee for any reason.

I also know the odds of anyone's employees refusing to serve a class or color or sex of people is less likely than the odds of me waking up naked with Orlando Bloom.
Click to expand...

I already described this if you bothered to read the whole statement that you quoted, I'm not sure why you're questioning something that I already answered. And if they were good employees, they wouldn't be losing me customers. They'd be able to leave their religion at the door, along with all of their problems, and just do the job they were being paid for. Anyone who cannot do that is not a good employee.
 
Cephus said:
I already described this if you bothered to read the whole statement that you quoted, I'm not sure why you're questioning something that I already answered. And if they were good employees, they wouldn't be losing me customers. They'd be able to leave their religion at the door, along with all of their problems, and just do the job they were being paid for. Anyone who cannot do that is not a good employee.
Click to expand...

I understand. You'd fire an employee who had a religious objection to something you want him to do, even if he was a good employee otherwise, rather than do something so that everyone wins, you'd fire him. You don't need to say any more.
 
tres borrachos said:
I understand. You'd fire an employee who had a religious objection to something you want him to do, and if he was a good employee otherwise, rather than do something so that everyone wins, you'd fire him. You don't need to say any more.
Click to expand...

If it was part of his job description, damn straight I would. He's welcome to have whatever religious or other objections to anything he's being asked to do. The responsible person would go get another job that didn't involve that objection. The irresponsible person will whine for special rights and privileges. I guess you like irresponsible people working for you.
 
Cephus said:
If it was part of his job description, damn straight I would. He's welcome to have whatever religious or other objections to anything he's being asked to do. The responsible person would go get another job that didn't involve that objection. The irresponsible person will whine for special rights and privileges. I guess you like irresponsible people working for you.
Click to expand...

I got it the first time you said it. And the second. Was this last for maximum effect so everyone sees your distaste for religious people one more time?
 
tres borrachos said:
I got it the first time you said it. And the second. Was this last for maximum effect so everyone sees your distaste for religious people one more time?
Click to expand...

No, you keep responding. Don't want me to say it again, stop. Easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom