previous, related thread: ny catholic church on new gay marriage law.
gay marriage is finally legal in my state.
let the next wave of ignorance begin!.
Nevermind, I re-read the thread and now that I know what you DIDNT mean, I can see now that you actually are asking whether she should be allowed to continue working and refusing to sign for gay people.
And if that was what you were objecting too, then I COMPLETELY agree. If you refuse to do a part of your job you need to be replaced. Especially if you refuse to do it solely because your a bigot.
So the right thing happened. She refused to do her job for gay people and now she's gone.
previous, related thread: ny catholic church on new gay marriage law.
gay marriage is finally legal in my state.
let the next wave of ignorance begin!.
She stepped down because she felt morally unable to complete her duties. . . how do we NOT allow someone to step down?
Are you just being sarcastic or what? Wow, and with eye rolls too. I thought I was being polite.
What gives?I didn't ask if she should be allowed to step down, and I never said she voluntarily resigned.
I'm not being sarcastic. . . i'm trying to understand what you want.
Your thread title is: Should conscientious objectors to gay marriage be allowed?
The only alternative to "being allowed" is "NOT being allowed".
You then cited that woman as a conscientious objector. When all she did was step down. So it's not a big leap at all to assume you meant she SHOULDNT be allowed to step down.
Premise A: Conscientious objecting to gay marriage is not allowed.
Premise B: Stepping down is a form of conscientious objecting to gay marriage.
Conclusion: Stepping down is not allowed.
I'm not the only one who thought that's what you meant. If it's not what you meant, then I'm still confused as to what you want us to do to her?
previous, related thread: ny catholic church on new gay marriage law.
gay marriage is finally legal in my state.
let the next wave of ignorance begin!.
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.
I agree, and I believe she would agree with you as well. . . which is why she stepped down.
I do not get what this flap is about. The conditions of her job changed to something that did not suit her so she quit. That's her right.
X2
It really is just that simple
Even if she originally agreed to issue marriage liscenses to homosexuals when she first took the job, (although she didn't) that doesn't meen she's not allowed to change her mind later on. She could become part of some religion that hates gays AFTER taking the job. Are we supposed to force her to keep working?
previous, related thread: ny catholic church on new gay marriage law.
gay marriage is finally legal in my state.
let the next wave of ignorance begin!.
So should our employee (government employee paid by our tax $) be allowed to do this if it truly is against her beliefs?
She stepped down because she felt morally unable to complete her duties. . . how do we NOT allow someone to step down? The question is silly, of course she's allowed she's not a slave, she can quit her job.
We couldn't force her to work even if we wanted too. . . and why would we? Getting bigots OUT of the system is a good thing.
i stopped being a jw altogether when i went into college and took philosophy classes and started thinking for myself.
i understand a lot of you former jw's are still theists, in fact it seems probably the majority of you are.
i am agnostic, meaning i don't feel there is enough evidence for against either cause to subscribe my lifestyle to one belief.. .
Good arguments, unfortunately they rely on metaphor and witnesses are generally to dumb for that.
God (or his equivalent) looks down at the humans on earth (ants) and see's us spending 200 years trying to perfect a mechanical eye (ants building an ant hill), then laughs when we marvel at the human eye, when to him it was just celestial wind blowing particles together that created it.
Because of their incredible lack of understanding of evolution a stupid witness will take that analog and think you mean that eyeballs spontaneously came into existance from wind blowing particles around. . .
The sad truth is, I think it would go over their heads.
jim has a job stacking boxes for a courier company.
frank has his own business selling lumber.
jim has a house project so he needs some lumber.
It goes "round and round" until the profit comes to someone who turns it into something unprofitable, or merely squanders it, and then it's lost forever correct?
Well in the example you gave. SOMEONE is 'loosing' $50 and someone else is gaining $50
The $50 isn't gone, it just exists in another form.
In your example, Jim looses $50, but Frank gains $50. The only way the $50 is really 'lost forever' is if Jim were to burn the lumber and make it unrecoverable.
In this case Jim looses $150, but Frank still gained $50 so $100 is lost forever.
That is an unsustainable system, but only if no more goods are created. Trees continue to grow, so even if someone wastes the lumber by destroying it, more is being generated so it's ok.
pretty graphic so becareful...... boy is ok.... showed my 8yr old son the local news coverage since i alway say becareful when he is a ninja.. http://bossip.com/422375/oh-damn-boy-survives-having-bamboo-spear-through-neck-video69691/.
Heal is a pretty awesome name!
pretty graphic so becareful...... boy is ok.... showed my 8yr old son the local news coverage since i alway say becareful when he is a ninja.. http://bossip.com/422375/oh-damn-boy-survives-having-bamboo-spear-through-neck-video69691/.
Well his ninja moves might leave something to be desired but his spear-making abilities are spot-on!
i knew i'd draw you in with that incredibly fascinating thread title.
it just screams: "click me" doesn't it?
did you ever have to look up the definition of a word that you've heard used all your life?.
I knew I'd draw you in with that incredibly fascinating thread title. It just screams: "CLICK ME" doesn't it?
Did you ever have to look up the definition of a word that you've heard used all your life?
I did: "Caveat"
I realized all of a sudden that I had two different meanings of it in my mind. The definition when I read it and when I hear it.
When reading it I always thought it was pronounced: 'Cave Eat' and thought of it like a cave forming under a road until it collapsed. . . so basically something bad that needs fixed before it causes a big problem.
When hearing it I never made the connection that 'kah vee ott' and 'Caveat' were the same word.
I just realised like 2 minutes ago that these were the same word even though I've heard it and seen it used thousands of times. So I just looked up a word that I probably should have known the definition of since I was 8: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/caveat
jim has a job stacking boxes for a courier company.
frank has his own business selling lumber.
jim has a house project so he needs some lumber.
This system does not seem self sustaining to me.
Well that's because it's not a system. . . it's a single transaction.
Doesn't Jim have a job stacking stuff? Or does Jim's entire 'system' boil down to going to Frank and buying lumber?
If Jim wanted to produce his own lumber how would he do that without spending more than it would cost to just go buy it from Frank?
Jim could buy the lumber from the same place Frank gets it for $100.
If that's not possible then you could say that the lumber is actually WORTH $150 and Frank is just getting it cheap. In which case Jim hasn't lost $50 because he spent $150 and got $150 worth of lumber.
Jim could turn around and resell it for $150 if he so desired.
