-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Video of clerk denying same-sex marriage
- Thread starter Mad Season
- Start date
- Status
In these cases I don't even have a problem with that specific person asking their supervisor to have someone else perform the task (assuming they are otherwise normally authorized to do so). As long as someone can do it on the state's behalf it shouldn't have to be anybody specifically.
If there is no one else who is authorized to perform such a task then she is SOL though. Since the state can't by inaction deny them equal protection and if she were the only person authorized or able to do so.
If she is fired, crazies will put up a gofundme and she'll get an absolute fuckload of money out of it. Probably many years worth of salary. Makes sense to ride it out.
Edit: Looks like two other people beat me to the answer.. for good reason!
Just play the pronoun game.
"If they're so vehement in their belief against gay marriage"
"Why not just leave their job? They're gonna lose it anyways"
And you'll never be wrong
On topic, what a shit example of a Christian. To paraphrase Gandhi, "I like your Christ, not so much your Christians." The world is full of hate enough as it is but they just can't help themselves.
I'm a programmer, but typing a semicolon is against my religion. I'm gonna ask my boss to come over and type it every time I need one.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
But... Christianity does teach us us to love homosexuals, not hate them.
Thaedolus
Member
...it's a love stoning, it's not about hate...
Air Zombie Meat
Member
In a conditional way that condemns them at the same time, sure.
I just don't understand people saying this.
Should a McDonalds worker be able to refuse to serve a fat customer?
"I don't feel comfortable contributing to their weight problems."
You're not there to judge people's lifestyle and decide who can have your employer's service, you're there to do your job.
thelatestmodel
Junior, please.
He was, he sent me a PM. Took me a while to get that one.
I laughed
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Christianity doesn't teach stoning anyone.
Love isn't a synonym for endorsement.
It's tempting to set up a bunch of fake GoFundMe's so that when the real one inevitably goes up, nobody'll believe it's real...
If this is the state denying rights by proxy, does that put the state at risk of litigation?
TimorousPanda
Member
Totally agree. And on top of that, these are gorvernment employees. These people have paid their taxes for 10 years and this gal is turning them away. Gross.
I am not saying it's right to do what she is doing. Though if she is going to deny them I'd rather they be able to have someone else help them instead of getting nothing.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
It was Paul that was against homosexuality.
I would like to see statistics on how many homosexual citizens live in the south. I think the numbers would be rather surprising.
pretty sure that bakery who refused to make a cake for a gay couple got a massive godundme campaign if i'm remembering right
Why not use an example that has some bearing in reality?
I'm Jewish and a chef, my restaurant serves pork but I keep kosher. I ask my sous chef to taste the corn chowder with pork belly to make sure it's seasoned well.
Or switch to Python ;p
Hell I work with a few. But I do live in the fairly liberal side of Kentucky.
CornBurrito
Member
If she somehow wins the case I will do everything in my power to get the same job in the same state. Then refuse to serve everyone because all humans are sinners. Getting paid to do nothing
Poltergust
Member
I can recall at least two separate instances, so yes.
This reminds me of the WKUK Butterbar skit.
I'd winky-face back, but it's against my religion.
Being fat isn't a protected class in the United States (unless it reaches a disability status). Someone's religion is. The debate we are having now is whether or not a person can be forced to do something against their 'deeply held' religious beliefs, and whether or not religious protections can allow someone to opt-out of serving as a public employee in the service of normal, everyday duties. To be honest, I think this debate is actually a rather interesting one, and one that is worth having... But I also believe that the way it is being articulated and argued is only opening the door for more bigotry and misguided people trying to latch onto the argument without truly understanding the core behind both the supreme court decision and what it means for future social and civil rights issues.
Arrowgigantic
Member
Love them by saying a very important part of their life is on the same level as stealing and murder and then give them a pamphlet to join the happiness club and learn to be a decent person instead of a terrible one.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
It's amazing (in a bad way) to watch history somewhat repeating itself...
excelsiorlef
Member
And then some of em will complain about government handouts and the evils of the lazy folk on welfare
How so?
Are we counting closeted homosexuals? I bet the ratio of gay to straight people in the South isn't demonstrably different from the ratio for the North.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
If she somehow wins the case I will do everything in my power to get the same job in the same state. Then refuse to serve everyone because all humans are sinners. Getting paid to do nothing
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Christianity has a harsh message for everyone. We're all the moral equivalent of robbers and murderers.
I didn't say fat was protected. that's was my point. Discrimination should not be a religious freedom. That's why we have Civil Rights.
Back to the fast food worker. Since gluttony is a sin, would be ok with a Christian worker refused to sell food to an overweight person?
Ziltoidia 9
Member
Actually, she is doing the oppression.
When I made the point that being fat wasn't a protected status, I am referencing specifically the idea that as of right now, anyone can be refused service for being fat. Of course, this is a horrible practice in theory, and it has gotten some companies into social media trouble, but there is nothing from a national level that will legally prohibit someone from refusing service to a fat person because they are overweight.
On the other hand, religion is a protected status, which means that there are some considerations that need to be made when going forward with this issue. And honestly, regardless of anything else, I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court doesn't eventually have to rule on this issue from a religious freedom standpoint, since it is clear that some states are eager to push that agenda and issue.
Lost Fragment
Obsessed with 4chan
Yeah I don't get why people think having to give licenses to gay couples violates their religious beliefs. If I was a religious man I wouldn't give a fuck about the state's definition of marriage. The state wouldn't be my church.
Hate the sin, not the sinner, then tell them they are going to hell, are pedophiles, rapist, molesters, abominations, and then prevent them from having basic civil rights.
In this case, you're treating PRODUCTS differently, not PEOPLE.
A better analogy for this situation would be if you refused to sell the pork to other Jewish people because you think they should stay kosher too.
Oh yes, during the Indiana Religious Freedom thing, she said she wouldn't cater a gay wedding (a pizza place of all things?!) : http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza
Arrowgigantic
Member
This is why regular people don't trust Christians. They're the same as murderers.
Earthstrike
Member
Every dollar this woman gets will be a dollar not donated to a republican politician. This is a good thing and an example of a negative feedback loop.
i.e. Political party gets to extreme, dumbasses in their electorate incur an opportunity cost in the form of discrimination suits.
i.e. Political party gets to extreme, dumbasses in their electorate incur an opportunity cost in the form of discrimination suits.
CountAntonius
Member
Fire her and call it a day.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
We're talking about what Christianity teaches, not what its fallible followers proclaim. I have no trouble recognizing that a Christian who calls a gay person a "pedophile[], rapist, molester[]," or "abomination[]" is not acting out of love. And, as I've said before, I don't think Christianity teaches all that much about good human government.
Ha. As a matter of fact, I think Christians would poll better among "regular people" if they more often emphasized this aspect of Christian doctrine.
Mad Season
Banned
I imagine they'll be afraid to get sued
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked