• 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
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Specifically"? I must have missed that word. And the rest? Is nonsense blah of the type that the New-Bigot people love.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am afraid you are wrong. But you would never admit it.
 
joG said:
I am afraid you are wrong. But you would never admit it.
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong. The SCOTUS has in fact ruled on this. There is some various exceptions to this, such as the Hobby Lobby ruling, but that is a very narrow ruling, not one that affects other laws.

As I've said, logically, any law could violate someone's religious beliefs, which would make pretty much all laws unconstitutional if what you believed was true.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am afraid you are wrong. But you would never admit it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...
I doubt you know enough about the Bible to make those assertions but, we're not talking about 'feeding' we're talking about participation in an unholy, deviant inspired event.

These people [those of faith] have the right to be guided by their conscience and faith.
 
WCH said:
I doubt you know enough about the Bible to make those assertions but, we're not talking about 'feeding' we're talking about participation in an unholy, deviant inspired event.

These people [those of faith] have the right to be guided by their conscience and faith.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you live in a state where homosexuals are protected under public accommodation laws, you most certainly do not have that 'right'.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Actually, if you live in a state where homosexuals are protected under public accommodation laws, you most certainly do not have that 'right'.
Click to expand...

TX doesn't and I agree. PA laws take away rights and redistribute them to others.
 
WCH said:
I can't help your ignorance.
Click to expand...

You understand you aren't answering the question right? Why not just answer . . .we all know why .. . .do you?
Now please list them.
 
Last edited:
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...

One of these things is not like the others . . .
 
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...

They are all the same... so, I don't get the point of the thread.
 
WCH said:
I've already explained but, you obviously don't have enough Biblical knowledge [if any] to understand.

Maybe this will clear things up for you.

How the U.S. Supreme Court's Same-Sex-Marriage Decision Will Affect Religious Liberty - The Atlantic
Click to expand...

Yes that makes it very clear. You are still not answering instead you are trying to insult me but you are incapable of such...........mean while back at the ranch you providing other opinion pieces that are ill supported isn't answer either. My question was can you list the religious rights and freedoms we lost please and thank you.
 
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...

In each case is either try and have another clerk available for that type of permit if possible. If not, I'd possibly see about having a supervisor do it if it's a rare occurrence. If it's too common and there isn't another individual I can have take that case, and the individual was an otherwise good employee, I would offer them the option of taking a different position in the building prior to finally moving to termination.
 
Paleocon said:
One of these things is not like the others . . .
Click to expand...

Care to explain? All are GOVERNMENT documents for acts or practices that violate the employees personal faith of what is right.
 
Zyphlin said:
Care to explain? All are GOVERNMENT documents for acts or practices that violate the employees personal faith of what is right.
Click to expand...

The Muslim, the Wiccan, and the Buddhist all object to their jobs wholesale.
 
Zyphlin said:
How so? Are you saying individuals that issue such permits do that and ONLY that?
Click to expand...

No. I would note that only the first is objected to by outer system. Generally, a county clerk can hand off specific duties to subordinates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom