Posted on 09/06/2015 5:31:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Can your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job? This is one of the questions in the Kentucky County Clerk marriage certificate case. But it also arises in lots of other cases — for instance, the Muslim flight attendant who doesn’t want to serve alcohol and who filed a complaint on Tuesday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the airline’s denial of an exemption.
The question has also arisen before with regard to:
* Nurses who had religious objections to being involved in abortions (even just to washing instruments that would be used in abortions);
* Pacifist postal workers who had religious objections to processing draft registration forms;
* A Jehovah’s Witness employee who had religious objections to raising a flag, which was a task assigned to him;
* An IRS employee who had religious objections to working on tax exemption applications for organizations that promote “abortion, … homosexuality, worship of the devil, euthanasia, atheism, legalization of marijuana, immoral sexual experiments, sterilization or vasectomies, artificial contraception, and witchcraft”;
* a philosophically vegetarian bus driver who refused to hand out hamburger coupons as part of an agency’s promotion aimed at boosting ridership; and more.
And of course it arises routinely when people are fine with their job tasks, but have a religious objection to doing them on particular days (e.g., Saturdays and Fridays after sundown).
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Deal? In other words, accept it?
No deal.
Didn’t Muhammad Ali state religion was the reason he wouldn’t do the job he was supposed to be assigned to.
I will shortly go to bed, which means I will no longer be posting tonight.
IF she had been elected AFTER the SCOTUS ruling then I would say she would either need to resign or be impeached/recalled. But since she was elected and THEN the SCOTUS ruled for Legalized Gay Marriage then I can't see how the law can force her to issue the license being she is refusing to do so on religious grounds. Unless of course the First Amendment has been rewritten lately by way of judicial edict.
No doubt these laws have certainly held back our Muslim pResident from doing HIS!! Book ‘em Dano, The creature is just as guilty as Kim Davis. So there is an unwritten law: - ones for thee and not for ME.
If she doesn’t want to authorize it and keep her job she has to state where her religion states that a civilly accepted job duty is a violation
It’s simple
The military has tgat
Troops can’t say , ‘i participate in that action because my religion says I can’t’. They have to, for ex in the case of Catholics, show where the Catholic Church declares a war unjust. Until then, the troop has to do what the military tells him he has to do if tge government sanctions it. That’s all
This homosexual marriage crap, this woman could do everyone a favor and show legally how she is being persecuted. Until then no one who has ever had to do something fat work tgat is distasteful will sympathize
She will do nothing but make others who despise this horrible ruling look like freaks. And she will get nowhere
I’m not in charge. I’m just telling you how it’s going to come out
The out of control judicial system, which we are ostensibly in charge of, will not care about her case especially since shevwillnot be able to prove tgat her religion cares about this stupid civil marriage bs
The problem exists within the U.S. society There is where the damage is being done.
This ruling doesn’t touch the Catholic Church. It has matrimony.
I would go a bit further. The constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for public office. Therefore, the requirement to accept the personal authorization of sodomite unions under ones name is unconstitutional.
It is still not the LAW. It is a ruling by SCOTUS and they cannot make law! Does anyone understand our Republic and divided government any longer? Go to Hillsdsle College website and sign up for the FREE course FGS!
I’m glad you are convinced that others will be the first to be steamrolled.
No priest in good standing will perform matrimony between two people who do not follow church teaching. It is very simple
When THEY are brought to court and can bring canon lawyers to prove their case, they’d better be impeccable in their adherence to the faith. But that’s where you’ll see a true match up and possible persecution. It won’t look like this
The little sisters of the poor just lost their case
If yore so interested in persecution you know about that case. If not you’re full of it
THATS persecution
No one cares about it. But they will have to close up shop. They will not provide birth control. I never would. who cares? But that’s persecution. It stands no chance in court
I know the little sisters case. They have been mugged by the administration, and the judiciary has refused to redress the situation.
In the Davis case, the judiciary is abrogating the first amendment all by itself.
Again, I’m glad you are convinced that the loss of first amendment recognition of the god given right to freely exercise religion won’t affect the Catholic church. Good luck.
No the church will not be protected. As I said above. I’ll cut and paste
But Davis has not stated where her case is precisely religious persecution as the little sisters have
And priests will be in trouble as I said
No priest in good standing will perform matrimony between two people who do not follow church teaching. It is very simple
When THEY are brought to court and can bring canon lawyers to prove their case, they’d better be impeccable in their adherence to the faith. But that’s where you’ll see a true match up and possible persecution. It won’t look like this
The little sisters of the poor just lost their case
If yore so interested in persecution you know about that case. If not you’re full of it
THATS persecution
No one cares about it. But they will have to close up shop. They will not provide birth control. I never would. who cares? But that’s persecution. It stands no chance in court
Let them all have their exemptions. We do believe in freedom of conscience, don’t we?
Got it. You accept this first salvo because Saul was imperfect.
Good night.
I don’t know what that means. I do know that there is civil law and church law.
In this country one is compatible with the other
When government officials abuse their power and corrupt the system it’s up to we he people to fix it
Claiming persecution when it is there is our right and our duty by no less than a directive from Jefferson
Claiming persecution when it is not there, though it looks like it, is kooky and damages the cause
In our country, nothing will be right until we fix the unconstitutional ruling to allow legalization of abortion
In the Catholic Church, logical theologians have stated clearly that birth control is the root of abortion
All society fails from that point
You will see homosexual marriage and teaching of homosexuality to prepubescent kids you’ll see all manner of perversion and destruction of family. Marriage. Decency. Gender roles. Innocence
But people will not give up birth control so they laugh at this notion
What tgis woman is doing is silly compared with the acceptance of Obama as president, the clintons, the bushes, divorce, sales of intact fetuses, sex outside of marriage. And the persecution of nuns
And she does not help the cause
Read humanae vitae if you really want to know. All of this was predicted. 1968 It’s just logic that’s all
No matter whether she is hired, or elected, or appointed, ethically if you cannot or will not do the job you are paid to do, you must resign and let someone else do it.
RE: We do believe in freedom of conscience, don’t we?
The FIRST AMENDMENT ( emphasis on FIRST ) was not made the First for no reason. The framers wanted citizens to practice their faith as their conscience dictates without government interference or coercion.
Now, we have 5 lawyers who invented another right out of thin air and government using this “right” to force people to discard their First Amendment rights.
This is wrong in so many levels.
Because jobs trump morals and everything else, right? (Pun intended.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.