Pope: Govt. workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses (myth, church)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is the same thing. People who are willing to solve problems as opposed to tearing people down always find a way to make things work. What portion of Davis job is signing licenses to gays? 0.01%? I think that's pretty near.
That's a dishonest argument from you. If you take a job, you don't get to pick and choose what assignments you will perform.
He's in trouble now! He'll be branded "intolerant and Politically Incorrect. If he's like politicians and liberals, that may severely traumatize the Pope!
That's a dishonest argument from you. If you take a job, you don't get to pick and choose what assignments you will perform.
Your accusation is baseless, as I said nothing dishonest.
A job as a prison guard may not initially include the task of putting people to death, but when the State decides they will start executing people, it might become a part of the job description. However, a decent prison manager will not fire everyone who has a problem with such work, and instead will try to find someone who can do it. After all, you just need one or two people to perform such tasks. Same with signing marriage licenses for gays. It can be arranged that one person signs 99% of them, which are for straight marriages, and someone else signs the gay one.
The problem here is that people are so eager to attack her because of her beliefs, that they are not at all interested in finding other solutions to the problem. They are only interested in tearing her down.
Your accusation is baseless, as I said nothing dishonest.
A job as a prison guard may not initially include the task of putting people to death, but when the State decides they will start executing people, it might become a part of the job description. However, a decent prison manager will not fire everyone who has a problem with such work, and instead will try to find someone who can do it. After all, you just need one or two people to perform such tasks. Same with signing marriage licenses for gays. It can be arranged that one person signs 99% of them, which are for straight marriages, and someone else signs the gay one.
The problem here is that people are so eager to attack her because of her beliefs, that they are not at all interested in finding other solutions to the problem. They are only interested in tearing her down.
Actually, no. I'm not attacking her beliefs. If she believes that gay marriage is sinful, then that's her prerogative. However, it is not her prerogative to use her position of authority to prevent them from occurring in a lawful manner. And, as a public official, it is not her prerogative to defy a court order, or to order her subordinates to defy a court order. The woman has a 100% absolute obligation to carry out the laws, not write them on her own. So what I take issue is not her beliefs, but rather her abuse of power in support of her beliefs.
Plus, the .01% argument is indeed a dishonest one, for you are trying to argue that it doesn't matter if this woman doesn't do one part of her job. In a prison, there are plenty of guards. In a county courthouse, there are a limited number of positions.
Your accusation is baseless, as I said nothing dishonest.
A job as a prison guard may not initially include the task of putting people to death, but when the State decides they will start executing people, it might become a part of the job description. However, a decent prison manager will not fire everyone who has a problem with such work, and instead will try to find someone who can do it. After all, you just need one or two people to perform such tasks. Same with signing marriage licenses for gays. It can be arranged that one person signs 99% of them, which are for straight marriages, and someone else signs the gay one.
The problem here is that people are so eager to attack her because of her beliefs, that they are not at all interested in finding other solutions to the problem. They are only interested in tearing her down.
All of which would have been fine EXCEPT for the fact that she was, and still is, attempting to stop anyone in the office from issuing the licenses. That would be like the prison guard not only deciding that HE wouldn't execute prisoners, but he also wouldn't let anyone else in the entire prison do so.
She was offered a solution, but SHE was the one not interested in in solving the problem unless that solution included her office not issuing the licenses at all.
So the government revoked a law that murdering people is not illegal and demands that the government worker kill all the people they see , and if they refuse to do what they are to do in their position , then just fire them ...... So who cares what people think or the morals of the workers ...... See where would you see murdering not illegal , well nazi Germany passed a law say these people where not human , so you could now just kill them
So the government revoked a law that murdering people is not illegal and demands that the government worker kill all the people they see , and if they refuse to do what they are to do in their position , then just fire them ...... So who cares what people think or the morals of the workers ...... See where would you see murdering not illegal , well nazi Germany passed a law say these people where not human , so you could now just kill them
And if unicorns pooped skittles we would never be without candy.
Let's go even further. Maybe the government will make it open season on people with blue eyes. Or maybe they will make it mandatory to fart in womens faces. Or maybe they will make it legal to steal anything you want on Wednesdays.
So the government revoked a law that murdering people is not illegal and demands that the government worker kill all the people they see , and if they refuse to do what they are to do in their position , then just fire them ...... So who cares what people think or the morals of the workers ...... See where would you see murdering not illegal , well nazi Germany passed a law say these people where not human , so you could now just kill them
It is the same thing. People who are willing to solve problems as opposed to tearing people down always find a way to make things work. What portion of Davis job is signing licenses to gays? 0.01%? I think that's pretty near.
What if we modify your analogy and it is the executioner who becomes opposed to the death penalty. Does the executioner get to keep their job? I have no problem with them objecting, but the expectation that they could keep their job is unreasonable.
All of which would have been fine EXCEPT for the fact that she was, and still is, attempting to stop anyone in the office from issuing the licenses. That would be like the prison guard not only deciding that HE wouldn't execute prisoners, but he also wouldn't let anyone else in the entire prison do so.
She was offered a solution, but SHE was the one not interested in in solving the problem unless that solution included her office not issuing the licenses at all.
It is not about a single person. The pope's opinion applies to every person, be is a baker, prison guard, doctor, priest or clerk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
