Can someone help me out here?
I’m missing something. I just know I am.
I know a very religious woman who worked at a convenient store. She lived in a dry county. When the county voted to make selling liquor legal, her store started carrying beer. The owner’s decision. The woman did not believe in drinking and felt like a hypocrite if she were to sell booze....so she quit instead of denying customers the booze.
I know there’s a difference here, but I’m having a hard time rationalizing it. Don’t chew me out, just explain to me what I’m missing on this one.
xlnt example
In your example, the store owner started selling products that the woman personally could not in good conscience sell. The new products were not passed off as something they were not.
What the owner did not do is change the meaning of words, and then demand that she play pretend. If the store owner started stocking alcohol, but called it orange juice, and then not only insisted that the cashier accept it as orange juice, but threatened to fire her if she got uppity by deciding not to sell the new orange juice...
... what kind of wacko psycho behavior is that [on the part of the owner]? The poor woman should not have to embrace make-believe as a new condition of employment. The delusional boss is the one who should be sent into paycheck exile.
Religious preferences? These outrages are about normal employees being punished for retaining a firm grasp on reality, reason and truth as their reprobate employers lose their minds.
She’s an elected official.
She feels she is representing the majority that elected her, as well as standing up for her Christian beliefs.
Her constituents are firmly behind her.
I live about 60 miles from her county, and cheer for her daily.
She can try and resign. No guarantee the County Judge Executive has to accept her resignation.
He can the appoint someone to fill the post, but next election the matter could resurface.
Unless one of the leftist morons from Morehead State University runs for the position, and wins.
Drinking beer, wine or liquor does not violate the natural law ... It is even well considered in the Bible. Christ drank wine, so what’s the problem?
OTOH, sodomy IS a violation of both the Natural Law and of Reason. The ontological principle is that of being - what the thing truly is in reality, and what it’s natural purpose, or end is ... The reason for being. Homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong and unjust because they violate the natural purpose for which the two complementary sexes were created.
Selling alcohol does violence neither to the seller nor to the buyer, excluding the prohibition of prudence where either individual fails to meet statutory requirements for age and neither is impaired or known to be an alcoholic - in that case there is a both a legal and moral imperative to do no harm. IOW, alcohol is not intrinsically evil in its nature, save but for its abuse - but the abuse of a substance is not due to its inherent nature ... Whereas acts of sodomy are in themselves violently disordered, and against the very nature of the creature, contrary to the end for which it was designed and created.