• 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


  • Total voters
    54
Because some of those people may want to deny issuing a marriage license to people entering into second or subsequent marriages.

And again, irrelevant. I said to AW that in my state you can't get a license issued when your current status is "married". Please pay attention, thank you.
 
You just proved you don't really value your employees though. You are willing to give special exceptions to some employees, forcing others to make up that work because of their feelings.

Maybe some day you can be a senior manager like me and you'll get to hire and fire a bunch of religious people.
 
And again, irrelevant. I said to AW that in my state you can't get a license issued when your current status is "married". Please pay attention, thank you.

He wasn't talking about getting a license with a current legal status of marriage. He was talking about a clerk whose religious beliefs were that divorces were invalid and it would be adultery for someone to get remarried after a divorce.
 
He wasn't talking about getting a license with a current legal status of marriage. He was talking about a clerk whose religious beliefs were that divorces were invalid and it would be adultery for someone to get remarried after a divorce.

The user name "americanwoman"....and you're calling her a "he".

Here's what she said, which was about current status of marriage when applying for licenses:

It's kind of weird that given the divorce and remarriage statistics here we don't hear more about all those sinners adulterers having issues getting a marriage license since you typically have to put your current status or number of previous marriages. Anyways if you are hired to issue marriage licenses that's what you should do no questions asked.

Please stop quoting me. You really really annoy me and I'm so tired of having to explain things to you 100 times before you get it. Thanks.
 
Maybe some day you can be a senior manager like me and you'll get to hire and fire a bunch of religious people.

I'd prefer to be doing other things, but I've already been involved in the hiring process at work. As well as been involved in a conversation with my boss and a few other employees who started changing their availabilities to try to get Sundays off after they were hired with open availabilities, claiming they needed to go to church. My boss told them that they couldn't all get that day off. I pointed out that it wasn't really fair to force people who did have open availabilities to give up their Sundays/Weekends every week just because some people decided to get more religious after they were hired. Guess who she agreed with? You can't do that to your other employees. It is unfair. Especially when you are hired with the understanding that you had open availability and then expect a change to that to be approved but for you to face no repercussions for that, such as being told that there are simply no available hours for you.
 
The user name "americanwoman"....and you're calling her a "he".

Here's what she said, which was about current status of marriage when applying for licenses:

Please stop quoting me. You really really annoy me and I'm so tired of having to explain things to you 100 times before you get it. Thanks.

Do you not know that "divorced" is a legal marital status? She was not referring to people who are legally married there. She was referring to people who have been divorced and therefore sinning in getting remarried in the eyes of some people and their religions.
 
I'd prefer to be doing other things, but I've already been involved in the hiring process at work. As well as been involved in a conversation with my boss and a few other employees who started changing their availabilities to try to get Sundays off after they were hired with open availabilities, claiming they needed to go to church. My boss told them that they couldn't all get that day off. I pointed out that it wasn't really fair to force people who did have open availabilities to give up their Sundays/Weekends every week just because some people decided to get more religious after they were hired. Guess who she agreed with? You can't do that to your other employees. It is unfair. Especially when you are hired with the understanding that you had open availability and then expect a change to that to be approved but for you to face no repercussions for that, such as being told that there are simply no available hours for you.

Will you stop with these idiotic posts that are quoting me? You're babbling about Sundays and weekends and people getting religious after they are hired and going to church. You are so off topic it's painful. Stop quoting me.
 
Do you not know that "divorced" is a legal marital status? She was not referring to people who are legally married there. She was referring to people who have been divorced and therefore sinning in getting remarried in the eyes of some people and their religions.

I don't want to get dinged so I will only say this. You have posted the most idiotic posts in the world today.

An adulterer is still married. An adulterer can't apply for a marriage license while he's still married. Which is what I posted.

Now go annoy someone else with your stupid posts, please. I won't open one of your quotes in here again.
 
Will you stop with these idiotic posts that are quoting me? You're babbling about Sundays and weekends and people getting religious after they are hired and going to church. You are so off topic it's painful. Stop quoting me.

If you would stop insisting that employees should be accommodated for their religious beliefs, at least by good managers, you wouldn't get the responses from me that you do. Religious beliefs should not be held as more important than anything else in someone's personal life. That is just how it is.
 
And we all know the law, don't we? You asked some hypotheticals and you got some answers. Don't be surprised when not everyone is as anxious to fire an employee as you are. Some people actually value their employees and don't want them to unnecessarily do something that will upset them or make them uncomfortable.

Well actually, so far you are the only one that seems to think a public employee should be allowed to discriminate without facing some type of disciplinary action. I don't like the idea of anyone being fired, but if you are a public employee it is your responsibility to do your job in a nondiscriminatory manner and to follow the law. If you can't do that, then find another job. However, the notion that a gay couple should go to city hall, take a number and wait in line forever, get to the counter and then be told that they need to wait for someone else to serve their lawful request because this individual doesn't believe they should receive a marriage license because they are gay, is frankly, offensive and it would be no different than a public employee discriminating against citizens based on the race, creed, or sex.
 
Well actually, so far you are the only one that seems to think a public employee should be allowed to discriminate without facing some type of disciplinary action. I don't like the idea of anyone being fired, but if you are a public employee it is your responsibility to do your job in a nondiscriminatory manner and to follow the law. If you can't do that, then find another job. However, the notion that a gay couple should go to city hall, take a number and wait in line forever, get to the counter and then be told that they need to wait for someone else to serve their lawful request because this individual doesn't believe they should receive a marriage license because they are gay, is frankly, offensive and it would be no different than a public employee discriminating against citizens based on the race, creed, or sex.

Oh no, I'm the only one who would not force a Muslim person to issue a liquor license if I had 10 other perfectly competent employees to do it, or myself? How terrible. I should be like everyone else demanding termination of a good employee. I guess I'm not a compassionate liberal like the rest of you.
 
Oh no, I'm the only one who would not force a Muslim person to issue a liquor license if I had 10 other perfectly competent employees to do it, or myself? How terrible. I should be like everyone else demanding termination of a good employee. I guess I'm not a compassionate liberal like the rest of you.


Interesting, I don't remember such an outcry a few years ago when Muslim Cab Drivers refused to pick up passengers carrying alcohol or blind people with service does who claimed it was against their religion.


They lost in court.

I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.



>>>>
 
I don't want to get dinged so I will only say this. You have posted the most idiotic posts in the world today.

An adulterer is still married. An adulterer can't apply for a marriage license while he's still married. Which is what I posted.

Now go annoy someone else with your stupid posts, please. I won't open one of your quotes in here again.

No, an adulterer can be someone who is legally divorced but viewed as still married in the eyes of certain religious people or even whole religions.

BIBLE VERSES ABOUT ADULTERY AND DIVORCE

Matthew 19:9 - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

You don't think there are Christians out there that take this verse seriously to mean that it doesn't matter if they get legally divorced, unless the Church approves an annulment, they are still married, and therefore committing adultery if they get married to someone else?

It's pretty easy to see how some people would consider it adultery even if there was a legal divorce.
 
Oh no, I'm the only one who would not force a Muslim person to issue a liquor license if I had 10 other perfectly competent employees to do it, or myself? How terrible. I should be like everyone else demanding termination of a good employee. I guess I'm not a compassionate liberal like the rest of you.

You are assuming that there would be that many people available in most government offices, doing that job. There aren't usually. Normally, there are only one or two people available at a county clerks office to issue marriage licenses, especially in small rural areas.
 
No, its to make the point that its not religious discrimination to require a public employee to do their job and follow the law.

shrug...

You could have dispensed with the theatrical poll and just said that in your OP.
 
Oh no, I'm the only one who would not force a Muslim person to issue a liquor license if I had 10 other perfectly competent employees to do it, or myself? How terrible. I should be like everyone else demanding termination of a good employee. I guess I'm not a compassionate liberal like the rest of you.

Why did the Muslim get a job as a clerk with the Alcoholic Beverage Board if they had a religious objection to issuing Liquor Licenses then?
 
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?

I don't believe any employee, be it government or private business, should personally determine whom they will or won't serve, and as such all should be warned, and if they persist, they should be fired.

I do believe that a business owner should be entitled to determine the scope of his/her business practices provided that once he/she determines the services they will offer, he/she may not refuse to provide services based on whom the customer is. They may decline service if the customer is abusive or disruptive in some way.
 
Interesting, I don't remember such an outcry a few years ago when Muslim Cab Drivers refused to pick up passengers carrying alcohol or blind people with service does who claimed it was against their religion.


They lost in court.

I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.



>>>>

I have no idea what this means. I don't recall talking about a Muslim cabdriver in my post.
 
Why did the Muslim get a job as a clerk with the Alcoholic Beverage Board if they had a religious objection to issuing Liquor Licenses then?

Where did this happen? Have a link to show me where a Muslim got at job with the Alcohol Beverage Board and where he is refusing to give out liquor licenses?
 
I have no idea what this means. I don't recall talking about a Muslim cabdriver in my post.


You mentioned Muslim's which brought the older case to mind and my post was on the topic at hand.

In this case Muslim's didn't get general support nor did they win in court by claiming their religious beliefs allowed them to not pick up blind people with service dogs.


>>>>
 
Back
Top Bottom