Should conscientious objectors to gay marriage be allowed?

by rebel8 51 Replies latest jw friends

  • shamus100

    ** allelsefails gets the threads most useful comment cookie ** :D

  • allelsefails

    Thanks Shamus I love cookies. and monkeys..... I mean Orangutans.

  • boisdunord

    Absolutely not.

    There's no place for religion in government. Maybe she rejects the thought of a man marrying a woman in a wheelchair. Should be be able to refuse to issue a marriage license to them as well? Allowing consciencious objectors is allowing homophobia.

  • Naddia_the_Godless

    I'm in agreement with most of the above comments. The law protects freedom of religion and prohibits discrimination based on religion in places of employment. However, someone must be available to do the job in question, whether it's this woman or someone else.

    I started working as a registered nurse when I was a Witness. Because of the JW stand on blood, I didn't believe that I could administer a blood transfusion in good conscience. I discussed this with my manager when I interviewed for my position. She was willing to accommodate my refusal to give blood by having another nurse do so, but she also mentioned that I would probably never be able to work in critical care because of my beliefs. I understood going in that my refusal to give blood as a nurse would greatly limit the types of jobs I could take. Departments like OR, ER, and ICU would probably not have hired me, not because they were discriminating against my religious beliefs, but because my beliefs prevented me from performing a frequent and necessary job.

    Another similar situation arose in my job when I was a JW. I wanted to work in a hospital, as opposed to a nursing home or doctor's office, but I was pretty much limited to med/surg, where blood transfusions were only given occasionally. Growing bored with med/surg, I trained and was certified as a SANE (sexual assault nurse examiner), and took call several times a month. My job as a SANE was to go to the ER if there was a rape or sexual assault and do the rape exam. After performing the exam, I had to educate the woman (often teens and young adults) on the potential for sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy and then offer the woman medication: antibiotics and a pill that would stop a pregnancy had one resulted from the rape.

    Due to my belief that abortion was wrong at any point after conception, I felt that administering that pill was putting the "murder weapon" into the woman's hands. I gave the matter a lot of thought and prayer, and concluded that I couldn't involve myself in that role, and that if I had to offer that medication to a woman I would not be able to work as a SANE. The problem was, there were very few nurses qualified to work in that capacity. They needed me. I talked to my supervisor about it, and to my surprise she was very sympathetic. She said that she felt the same way and wouldn't offer it either because of her Catholic beliefs. She also told me that several other nurses and some of the doctors held the same beliefs. There always had to be someone available to prescribe and administer the pill, but if the doctor or nurse caring for the patient didn't feel comfortable doing so based on their personal or religious beliefs, someone else would have to do it. She told me that as long as I did the rest of the exam, I could get another nurse in the ER to administer that medication.

    Within a few months of leaving the JW religion, I took a job in critical care. Ironically, one of the first patients I had to transfuse was a 12-year-old Jehovah's Witness girl. Her parents refused the blood, but the hospital obtained consent from the state and we forced it. In my current job, I give blood so commonly, I rarely even think of the ethical dilemma I once had with it. I would also have no problem now with offering a woman a pill that might stop a pregnancy after a rape, but I no longer work as a SANE.

    So my thoughts are that if this woman didn't feel that she could issue these certificates because they conflicted with her religious beliefs, she could ask her manager to accommodate her. Obviously, they have to be issued. If her employer could arrange for someone else in the office to do that particular task, and it didn't create too much of a problem for other employees and didn't inhibit the ability of people to obtain the certificates, she might be able to keep her job. People’s beliefs change. The law changes. Ultimately the job has to get done and someone has to be available to do it. If her refusal to do it is creating a problem, she needs to be replaced by someone who can do it.


  • cantleave

    She is just an intolerant bigot.

  • Qcmbr

    It will take the rising generation to remove this immoral form of hatred. We must hold our public officials to a higher standard because they are employed by the people. Religion must stop the moment you play a public role. Public officials must show the intolerant individuals and institutions what the rule of law really means and how tolerance and representation - even against mainstream opinion - are paramount.

    Religion can discriminate and show bigotry in their own backyard if they so desire. The little hate incubators should however, be subject to law and I'd be happy to require all houses of worship to be subject to audit to make sure they don't use public worship to promulgate hatred.

  • rebel8

    If she can't perform the duty which she was hired for................but when she was hired, that was not one of her duties

    Yeah, I considered that, but the truth is she was never allowed to conscientiously object to issuing these documents. She just never refused before. It's her that changed, not the work rules.

    Plus, I feel employers should be able to change job duties/rules--even moreso with civil rights issues such as gay marriage. Otherwise how can businesses and governments even function, if nothing can be changed? We would never be able to improve anything because police officers, judges and other officials could keep doing things the same way as their date of hire.

    Employees exist to provide needed services; if they aren't going to do that then their services are no longer needed.

    I think, in 40 years or so, this case is going to be studied in high school history classes as an example of hatred, like we now do with those who fought desegregation.

    <---How is this different?

  • Mad Sweeney
    Mad Sweeney

    If you refuse to do your job, you should be fired. Period. There are plenty of other people looking for work.

  • shamus100

    Poor girl. :(

    Look at that grown-up bitch behind her.


    We had an incident in the UK where a Christian woman working for an adoption agency refused to vote in favour of allowing gay males to adopt a child. She lost her job.

    People do have a right to act in line with their conscience but at work they are subject to the rules of the pay master, who has to apply the current laws of the land. (Or mistress - wouldn’t want to be accused of sexism)

    The days when western countries used the bible as their law book are long gone – thankgod!

Share this