Pope workers have "Human Right to refuse same-sex marriage"

[CrabCake]

then why are progressives quoting him left and right around here?

Because for a long time, the right has been making the false claim that they alone reflect Christian values and that their way of doing government is the Jesus way of doing government. The pope spits all over that assertion and exposes it for what it is.

The same doesn't go the other way though. The left has never claimed to be God's representatives in government. That one of the most esteemed Christian leaders disagrees with the left is not a big deal. That he disagrees with most of what the right proposes is a big deal. Being "God's point of view" was a huge selling point for the right. Destroying that image is a big deal. That was never a selling point of the left. That's why you don't see the name calling you predicted and instead are seeing the left shrug its shoulders on this. It isn't a big deal to a party that didn't build it's image around being God's party.

 

[WCH]

If she doesn't want to do her job, she needs to find a new job. It's her decision.

No, IIRC it was the SCOTUS' decision. She has no say in the matter other than expressing HER constitutional rights.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Re: Pope workers have "Human Right to refuse same-sex marriage"

She has the human right to quit her job if it offends her conscience. She doesn't have the right to keep her job while refusing to do it.

She is an elected official, by all indications reflecting the political beliefs of her constintuents. By refusing to resign in the face of personal hardship, she is showing great courage and dedication to representing her county and state. That is ultimately doing her job. After all, the TN constitution still defines marriage as being a union of two opposite sex people. SCOTUS may try to impose another definition, but the people of TN have spoken.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Re: Pope workers have "Human Right to refuse same-sex marriage"

She is an elected official, by all indications reflecting the political beliefs of her constintuents. By refusing to resign in the face of personal hardship, she is showing great courage and dedication to representing her county and state. That is ultimately doing her job. After all, the TN constitution still defines marriage as being a union of two opposite sex people. SCOTUS may try to impose another definition, but the people of TN have spoken.

The people of TN can speak about all sorts of things unconstitutional, it doesn't legally mean anything unless they can change the US constitution.

 

[roguenuke]

then you would be sued for religions discrimination.

Then they would get sued, until the first case when the court set its foot down and said that is not religious discrimination.

 

[roguenuke]

No, IIRC it was the SCOTUS' decision. She has no say in the matter other than expressing HER constitutional rights.

She does not have a constitutional right to not do her job and be immune from losing that job.

 

[ludin]

Then they would get sued, until the first case when the court set its foot down and said that is not religious discrimination.

you are wrong. you can't discriminate against religious people. it is against the law. please see the last ambercombie lawsuit.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Pope workers have "Human Right to refuse same-sex marriage"

She is an elected official, by all indications reflecting the political beliefs of her constintuents. By refusing to resign in the face of personal hardship, she is showing great courage and dedication to representing her county and state. That is ultimately doing her job. After all, the TN constitution still defines marriage as being a union of two opposite sex people. SCOTUS may try to impose another definition, but the people of TN have spoken.

Not likely the constituents in her county, who are generally pretty liberal and likely wouldn't have elected her to begin with if they had known she was going to do this. 24 people were the difference for her to get the Dem nomination for her position. 13 less votes for her, that went to the guy right behind her in the primaries and she wouldn't be in the position.

 

[WCH]

She does not have a constitutional right to not do her job and be immune from losing that job.

Freely express her religious beliefs. [Oh I guess Congress didn't do it]

 

[roguenuke]

you are wrong. you can't discriminate against religious people. it is against the law. please see the last ambercombie lawsuit.

It's not discrimination when the law applies to everyone, whether their reason for not wanting to issue the license is "God is against it" or "I don't like those people" or "it hurts the children", they can't refuse to do that part of their job for those reasons. The job is secular, the laws forcing people to do that job have nothing to do with religion.

 

[roguenuke]

Freely express her religious beliefs. [Oh I guess Congress didn't do it]

She can express her beliefs freely without refusing to issue licenses which is part of her elected position. If not, that is her personal problem and she needs to give up that position, that job. Just like if I felt it was wrong to sell useless products to people, then I shouldn't expect to keep a job in retail if I'm refusing to actually do that job based on those beliefs.

 

[ludin]

It's not discrimination when the law applies to everyone, whether their reason for not wanting to issue the license is "God is against it" or "I don't like those people" or "it hurts the children", they can't refuse to do that part of their job for those reasons. The job is secular, the laws forcing people to do that job have nothing to do with religion.

the courts disagree. please see the last ambercrombie ruling.
you cannot discriminate against religious people.

 

[ludin]

She can express her beliefs freely without refusing to issue licenses which is part of her elected position. If not, that is her personal problem and she needs to give up that position, that job. Just like if I felt it was wrong to sell useless products to people, then I shouldn't expect to keep a job in retail if I'm refusing to actually do that job based on those beliefs.

EEOC rules state that if there is a conscientious objection that the person must be given an accommodation as long as it is within reason.
not having her name on the marriage licenses is within reason.

retail outlets have to give accommodations to people for religious reasons. please see the last ambercombie ruling.

 

[roguenuke]

EEOC rules state that if there is a conscientious objection that the person must be given an accommodation as long as it is within reason.
not having her name on the marriage licenses is within reason.

retail outlets have to give accommodations to people for religious reasons. please see the last ambercombie ruling.

Reasonable is not having to wear something, relaxed grooming standards, giving quiet break areas to pray or specific break times, even not having to sell certain products to anyone when there are plenty other people available to do it. It is not changing laws and whole legal documents for people. Plus elected government officials have less available since they represent the government when in their official capacity/job.

 

[roguenuke]

the courts disagree. please see the last ambercrombie ruling.
you cannot discriminate against religious people.

Again, repeating that isn't making your case. The laws apply equally to everyone so their is no religious discrimination.

 

[AGENT J]

Pope is allowed his opinion just like everybody else but in this case theres ZERO legal rights or human rights that support his claim.

disagree? simply list the factual human right he is talking about, it doesn't exist lol

there is no right to keep a job, force that job to bend to you demands, break the law and violate the rights of others :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

EEOC rules state that if there is a conscientious objection that the person must be given an accommodation as long as it is within reason.
not having her name on the marriage licenses is within reason.

retail outlets have to give accommodations to people for religious reasons. please see the last ambercombie ruling.

I love when you make these posts and it shows how vastly and severely uneducated you are on this specific topic. That ruling is not legally analogous in anyway LMAO The EEOC does not support her Your post completely fails.

 

[roughdraft274]

Pope: Workers Have '''Human Right''' to Refuse Same-Sex Marriage Licenses - NBC News

see how the liberal left responds now.

they have been quoting the pope left and right on a variety of issues that agree with approving.
now I wonder how they will respond over this one.

Pope has said that it is a Human right to refuse to issue same sex marriage.

Pope Francis appeared to weigh in on the side of anti-gay-marriage clerk Kim Davis, saying government workers have a "human right" to refuse to carry out a duty if they have a "conscientious objection.

let the name calling begin as I figure it will.

She does absolutely have that right.

She can quit her job and work elsewhere.

I have the right to not breathe in smoke all day. That's why I don't want a job in a casino.

See how that works?

Kim Davis is a smart woman who knows that there are plenty of bigots in the Republican party that will gladly lavish her with money and fame if she gets a few slaps on the wrist for sticking it to those nasty gays.

 

[rhinefire]

Homosexuality has been cursed in all bibles and most forms of government throughout the history of the world and justifiably so.

 

[ludin]

She does absolutely have that right.

She can quit her job and work elsewhere.

religious discrimination is against the law. why are you being a religious bigot?

I have the right to not breathe in smoke all day. That's why I don't want a job in a casino.

that is a choice you can make. you can't force someone to go against their religious beliefs it is against the law.

See how that works?

I see that is how you think it works but that is not how it works.

Kim Davis is a smart woman who knows that there are plenty of bigots in the Republican party that will gladly lavish her with money and fame if she gets a few slaps on the wrist for sticking it to those nasty gays.

you are being a bigot yourself so what is your excuse for attempting to deny people their religious beliefs?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)religious discrimination is against the law. why are you being a religious bigot?
2.) that is a choice you can make. you can't force someone to go against their religious beliefs it is against the law.
3.) I see that is how you think it works but that is not how it works.
4.)you are being a bigot yourself so what is your excuse for attempting to deny people their religious beliefs?

1.) there is zero religious discrimination in the example you are referring to nor is there any bigotry
2.) exactly and nobody is forcing kim davis
3.) not only is it how he thinks it works its how it factually works based on rights and laws LMAO
4.) how is that poster a bigot for wanting kim not to break the law and infringe on the rights of others? also nobody is denying anybody thier religious beliefs in this example

 

[roughdraft274]

you are being a bigot yourself

Name a religious belief that I am attempting to deny someone? What religious belief am I saying they have no right to?

She can believe whatever she wants, but that belief can't be forced on to other people (IE: denying people the right of marriage).

 

[ludin]

Name a religious belief that I am attempting to deny someone? What religious belief am I saying they have no right to?

She can believe whatever she wants, but that belief can't be forced on to other people (IE: denying people the right of marriage).

you don't believe in religious protections and have been pretty adamant about your opposition to peoples religious beliefs
even though the law says they are entitles to them.

in fact you down right ignore that the law exists and tell people with religious beliefs to quit their job.
that is pretty bigoted to me.

 

[roughdraft274]

you don't believe in religious protections and have been pretty adamant about your opposition to peoples religious beliefs
even though the law says they are entitles to them.

in fact you down right ignore that the law exists and tell people with religious beliefs to quit their job.
that is pretty bigoted to me.

If their religious beliefs deny other people constitutional rights, then yes they shouldn't have that job.

That's not bigoted.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

No, IIRC it was the SCOTUS' decision. She has no say in the matter other than expressing HER constitutional rights.

She can express her Constitutional rights without violating others'. She has no Constitutional right to deny other people their Constitutional rights.