Should conscientious objectors to gay marriage be allowed?

by rebel8 51 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  WTWizard

  This sounds like they changed the job description in the middle of the game. If a person is against gay marriage and took the job, having no way of knowing performing gay marriage is going to become part of it, that should not become part of it. That would be like telling a witless who allows others their freedom of religion that Christmas would under no circumstances be part of the job, and then just before the big pay raises start, changing the rules so Christmas becomes part of the work requirements.

  However, if at the time of employment it is made that performing gay marriage is part of the job and the person accepts the job anyways, that person has in fact accepted that requirement. Just like a person accepting a job knowing Christmas was going to be a part of the job, and then refusing to do that part and suing the company for requiring the person to do it. If the person is hired with the full knowledge that performing gay marriages would be part of the job, that person has agreed that they would do it when the need arises.

  Both parties should keep their agreements made at the time of hiring. Now, if this person was blatantly and consistently infringing on others' freedom of religion, it might be acceptable payback to return this favor and require performing gay marriage anyways. But, if people respect others' freedoms, others should afford them the same.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  WTWizard You make some very reasonable points that I find myself agreeing with.

  In Britain the enforcement of pro-gay attitude has turned into a witch-hunt. Someone even mentioning in public that they disapprove of homosexuality can result in arrest. In the workplace it usually leads to redundancy. Tolerance is needed on all side if we are to have a fair and workable society.

  Personally, people can marry monkeys for all I care but then rules in Rome are rather more flexible.
• 

  shamus100

  Obviously, not agreeing if someone is homosexual should not result in arrest. That is just ridiculous.
• 

  rebel8

  if at the time of employment it is made that performing gay marriage is part of the job and the person accepts the job anyways, that person has in fact accepted that requirement.

  Her job is to issue licenses and sign certificates.

  She was never allowed to select who she gave a marriage certificate to, except if it violated the law. Those were the conditions upon which she accepted her job.

  Still don't agree with the logic that she should be accommodated because the law changed, if that's what you're getting at.

  Following that logic, police officers and judges wouldn't be required to enforce new laws of any kind, because they weren't in existence when they got hired.

  The work rules did not change (no conscientious objection).

  Both parties should keep their agreements made at the time of hiring.

  At the time of hiring she was informed she was to uphold the laws. She swore an oath.
• 

  jam

  Wow, I never thought about it until now, but how my views

  has change sense I left religion. Are unbelievers less

  judgmental then believers.
• 

  allelsefails

  WTWizard - I agree that it is just like the scenario you presented. If a company or agency changes thier policies you either change with it or leave. When I first moved to my town it was dry - no alcohol at all - now they sell beer and wine at all the grocery stores. If someone who was hired while they were dry was offended by the change -so what? Do they get to keep there job if they refuse to check out people who come thru their line with beer?
• 

  Scully

  Let's be clear - the employee in question is NOT an officiant, participating in the exchange of vows between the same sex couple.

  She is issuing a slip of paper that legally permits the couple to marry, officiated elsewhere, on another date. Would she deny a homosexual a driver's licence, knowing that sometimes homosexuals drive to places where homosexuals meet and sometimes hook-up?? Would she deny a homosexual medicaid applications, knowing they have a higher risk of HIV/AIDS? Would she deny a homosexual the ability to pay their property taxes, since she has some idea of what goes on in the bedroom of their house??

  It's none of her business to discriminate against anyone. It may be what she believes, but she has no right to impose her beliefs on others, causing them inconvenience in processing a rightful, legal transaction.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I would frame the issue as should the State of New York allow an employee to exercise personal discretion and bias in the conduct of official business. The legislature, elected representatives, enacted a valid law to stop discrimination in marriage. Said employee may resign. Civil servants are not free to invent public policy. The parallels to Jim Crow and Nazi laws are striking.

  I say Good Riddance. There is the door and we will keep any benefits.

  Should Roman Catholic state employees interfere with administration of the const'l right to choice? No. The government is forcing no one to perform a job. The civil servants retains all her First Amendment associational rights in her private life.

  The atmosphere must be blissful and joyful in Greenwich Village this weekend. Now, they will lose that sophisticated gay culture and become old jerks like everyone else.
• 

  shamus100

  I again denounce gay marriage and straight marriage and strongly feel that both should be immediately and permanently banned.
• 

  Rabbit

  It's as simple as this...laws change...all the time, mostly for the better. I happen to think that adults should be able to choose and marry anyone they desire.

  It may be a while before Texans will have that Right, but that law will change, too.

  Someday...that will be the Law. If, someone cannot follow that law or a even a speed limit change, let them complain/disobey/resign/or pay the fine. (whichever fits)