Religion Should employees be allowed to use religion to not do job duties?

[Tom]

Agreed, There should be no jail but the jail time is from contempt of court. Thus, release her and set precedent for all contempt of court rulings?
She needs to spend her time in jail for her contempt of court but when that time is served the charges need to be re-evaluated. Is it an issue of her actions or the judges respect?
I can't count the times that the letter of the law has decided my fate in life. The letter of the law is clear - gay marriage is legal there.
It doesn't matter if I think it is morally wrong the law says it is legal and that makes it legal - no point in making it confusing. As an appointed clerk of the government she is required to uphold the letter of the law - PERIOD.
"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" means that no matter what the original state of grace the government was in when they take office they must uphold the letter of the law as it is now.

When I signed my life on the line to defend our nation I was asked to kill. I didn't want to but I had to because that was how the letter of that law fell. When we went to peacetime, I was asked not to kill, even when my life was in danger from live fire. Had I killed to defend myself I would have been at fault. Because the law said so.
I know this because there is a Captain in Leavenworth Prison for the rest of his life from that same decision.

The point I am trying to make is that this clerk of the government decided to change the law to coincide with her own beliefs. Whether it was right or wrong is not the issue. The fact that she did not uphold her oath to her position is. Since it wasn't a life or death decision she shouldn't be jailed for it but she should certainly lose her position.

Its not even an issue of going up against the government. The people voted to make gay marriage legal. She is going against the will of the people. Had the people voted against gay marriage then she would be in the right. They Didn't.

I commend her personal integrity and I hope for the best outcome in her favor but I understand the issue and why it is important to find a solution. Depending on how this is handled and the outcome, it is possible there could be many more moral dilemmas concerning the "Peoples Choices" in the future.

The person is honorable - The People are Insane

We see evidence of our insanity in the state of our Nation as it is today. Why do we tolerate politicians that we can't trust with anything? We tolerate the people that we asked to stand up and represent us. We tolerate lies, theft and subversion.

The issue of religion is the 'in your face' issue that everyone sees.

Look deeper.

 

[Tom]

There's employment contracts and training prior to taking jobs at restaurants, and typically a 90 day period where employers and employees can 'test the relationship'.

Funny you should mention that.

When I applied for the Manger position I passed the 'test' highest ever.
How did I do it?

I answered all the questions as if the Company was my GOD.
I was deemed 'In a Relationship with the Company"

This is the same company that fired me when I got sick.

Dedication + Commitment = Stupidity (Lesson Learned the hard way)

Its amazing what 'The People' want and what "The Person" wants. Often not the same thing.

 

[Guest50131]

I answered all the questions as if the Company was my GOD.
I was deemed 'In a Relationship with the Company".

Oh I never held any company in that stature. To me a company is a living, thinking creature with a different perspective than a human.

I worked my ass off for companies, don't get me wrong, and typically only worked for organizations I was morally aligned with. And when I signed up for the US Military and transferred to the NSA, I knew what I was getting into by signing up for the military, I took it as an experience, and was rewarded and found myself believing in the US Military which defied everything I knew about it going in.

So when I exited to join the NSA, I treated it like a responsibility - but with this, I also treated it like I think an elected person would for an elected role. I didn't go into it just for me. I went into it for those I represented - my friends, my lovers, my family and those I had made the acquaintance of, or would get to know over time.

But I feel ya, Tom. My dad was treated roughly the same way by companies as well, and here I am spat and chewed up homeless thanks to shitty company treatment of employees.

Look. The law is the law, agreed.

But when you're dealing with real people.

The implementation of that law into supporting CIVILIAN based systems may take time.

Tom, you're not in the military any more.

Neither am I.

So you GOTTA understand that the military with the UCMJ does not operate like the civilian world.

Real people don't jump when an order is barked at them.

There's no real decision to be made in my opinion. Explain the lady's position. Give her her job back. respect her authority as a leader representing a civilian population. Tell people to vote the next time the elections come up. And if you're her superior, then understand her as a person, and use that creative noggin of yours to find alternatives if you experience pressure.

It's really that simple.

Again. This is NOT a military society we're in.

Last I checked. We're not a fascist nation.

Personally I think the fact she had to get a lawyer to defend herself sucks. But the lawyer's done a fantastic job elevating the issue to the public mind which in the end benefits a free society.

 

[Tom]

Tom, you're not in the military any more.

The military gave me structure at a time when I needed it. I was traveling a destructive road back then.

Letting her continue as she has been is no longer viable. The reality is that people are focused on the issue.
There is no going back for her. There is only what comes next.

As unfair as it all might seem there is a bright side to this. Not for her but for the people. Its not an issue of religious beliefs but an issue of personal morality.

Hopefully, people will see that morals still have power. I don't personally agree with the whole gay thing but I am able to accept that others need understanding. My concern is not for the clerk, but for the morality of people in general.

I am not following this news story because the news appalls me anymore but I have opinions that are mine and I share them for insight. I don't care who agrees or disagrees with me. My belief is that somewhere someday something I might write on this internet might help someone somewhere. It holds true whether I am writing fantasy or opinion.

The fact is that gay marriage is legal there, marijuana is legal elsewhere, gambling is legal still elsewhere. The people dictating the morality of their "State" is what America is all about. Looking at it from the outside I think they are all crazy. I am but one in a vast group of many.

If our president were to embrace Islamic values and pass laws that promote those values do we sit by and allow our national heritage to be corrupted? We Do! How can any of us complain about a simple clerk when our nation is being torn asunder right before our eyes and we do nothing? We face a list of possible representatives to our Nation next year and not one of them are moral enough to wear the coat. What do we do? We elect the one that promises the least damage.

Personally I feel for this young lady and her moral dilemma. But, as it is, its her moral dilemma. That should clue everyone into the issue. It is a personal moral issue not a national issue. Sure it sells airtime, helps ratings and makes news agencies more powerful. How much power should we be giving the news agencies? Where are their loyalties? They don't care if I live or die. No one cares if I live or die. Its the way the world works.

I say let her go free but that doesn't fix the issue. If she goes back to work then there will still be the issue of those two loving guys that want to get married. Since they are allowed to do so then the clerk must not be allowed to continue in her position. See, America is about rights and freedoms. The Gay couple has the right and the freedom to marry. One person cannot be allowed to take that freedom from them.

 

[Guest50131]

We face a list of possible representatives to our Nation next year and not one of them are moral enough to wear the coat. What do we do? We elect the one that promises the least damage.

Oh i found an answer to this one.

Train my mind to believe I am the only thing in existence.

Then vote for me.

Doesn't matter what happens with 'popular election'.

Everything has become an interconnected neuron in my mind and is merely a puppet on a string.

Now I'm saying this not as a megalomaniac. But as a promise to anyone and anything listening.

My goal over the coming years is to make a very real heaven on Earth. For me this involves shifting our civilization to become a space faring civilization. To me this involves loosening of sex and nudity laws and moral standards substantially. To me it means first contact with other species will be done fully nude.

To me this means creating simulation so real, where I can do and be anything I want, and I can spend any amount of time I want to in these simulations just hanging out.

Now as for the 'choices' of 'actors' in 'leading roles', quite frankly, I don't care which talking head represents, they are all actors. This isn't to say I do not respect them, I do, but no matter the decisions they make, my will rules all until I grow tired of it - see the Borg return - and then retire.

Do I think better 'actors' need to represent? Absolutely. But right now, this population, your population seems to think it rules me, not understanding it's the other way around, so I let you choose your pawns and my mind creates strategies to achieve my goals regardless of the faces your society presents.

Tom, I would drive you insane if you had me living anywhere near! But suffice it to say, you and your writing have absolutely had an impact on my life, which is among the reasons I 'haunt' these forums.

America is about rights and freedoms. The Gay couple has the right and the freedom to marry.

America is anything you want to believe it is. That's the beauty of this country's design.

One person cannot be allowed to take that freedom from them.

Tom, One person tried taking the freedom to support her community by the values she had signed on for away from Ms Whatshername. She refused to let them.

She took nothing away from these couples. She merely refused to changed when commanded to.

It is not like these couples do not have other options.

A plethora of other locations they can go to to achieve the ends they desire.

In any case. She's an elected leader.

A leader.

A leader makes decisions.

A leader occasionally breaks rules.

Maybe sometimes even the law.

Because the law, created by humans, is fallible and subject to change.

It's my opinion that this mutable law has to respect the same qualities in itself to those it represents, which is - sometimes change has to occur over time.

She represents a face to this need for respecting the 'over time' thing.

 

[Tom]

The question is

Should employees be allowed to use religion to not do job duties?

The issue comes when religious beliefs clash with what the public considers moral.

Coming from a Christian household I understand the issue. However, Jesus Christ is not the basis of Christianity anymore, was it ever? Christianity embraces peoples weaknesses and turns a loving soul to understanding. Accepting others for who they are and giving then the information to make their own decisions regarding their eternal souls.

One thing I figured out is that religion is a ruse. It was designed to make people change their behavior in favor of someone else's belief of morality. In Christian teachings this is called Vanity. When a person changes their nature to accommodate someone else's morality it is a form of slavery. My religion, if you want to call it rel;religion, accepts that every single person is different and follows their own path in life.

If I deem manual labor as a sin, then any manual labor I must perform is an act against my religion. Sure the issue is a well-known established religious belief but it is still only a belief. Reality shows that gay coupling is possible and feelings, well, feelings are nothing but personal.

Should religion be a factor in performing job duties? Well, yes and no.

First of all, Religion is purely personal. When push comes to shove, its your own personal beliefs that dictate the path you choose for your life. Popular religion 'Beliefs' are mutable by perception. Always have been. Even religious doctrine is hazy when it comes to personal situations.

Morals are something that is dictated by personal beliefs. Hard to write that thought, give me a minute, felgercarb...
Morals can be present when religion is not. Morals develop from wisdom gained from life experience. But, that's not entirely true either, Morals can be gained by learned experience as well. You can find morality by examining the world around you even tho you didn't experience the condition that lead to the moral. Morals can be gained by intellectual thinking. Compassion and empathy can affect the morality you feel.

Since religion is forced compliance, the clerk is acting upon an established, forced morality. From what I have read in this thread, she just adopted her religious belief system. She is acting upon a given set of mandates as per religious doctrine. Given that the modern act of faith in Christian belief is to oppose gay coupling I completely understand. However, I wonder if her actions are her own or in compliance with her vision of what is expected of her?

See, To Thy Own Self Be True.
If she were not of religious persuasion would she have issue with issuing those permits? Given the 15 minutes of fame and the nature of vanity to the Christian religion, is she seeking some king of public justification to her religious convictions? Granted, I have no insight to her nature and only her and God really know her motives. Does she know gays that were unhappy? Nobody but her knows.

My answer to the question at hand must be undecided for lack of data. It matters not if it is this particular case or any case. Religion is personal and singular. Everyone sees differently where that is concerned.

As for PUBLIC officials. Those in public positions are asked to represent the beliefs and laws of the government they represent. Not only are they expected to act publicly moral they are required to uphold the elected mandates as imposed by public votes. They are the representative of the people's desires. Right or wrong, the swore an oath to uphold the ideals of their office, no matter what they might be.

Part of what makes our Nation United is that we can vote for what we want to govern us. It is a foundation of our Nation's ...religion. When We The People vote a mandate into our doctrine it must be honored above all else. Otherwise what's the point?

Kudos for this woman for morally acting upon her new religious beliefs but she is in dereliction of the duty she was elected to perform.

 

[Tom]

Then vote for me.

You, Would be much more favorable than the fools that are slated for the position.

'actors' in 'leading roles'

I wish popular American could see this. Problem is most of America is wrapped up in dealing with their concepts of what life is supposed to be. Money talks and it dictates everything.

America is anything you want to believe it is.

Can't agree - The United States of America was created for a specific reason and represents the ideals of people oppressed and seeking freedoms not available elsewhere.

She took nothing away from these couples. She merely refused to changed when commanded to.

She took from the couples seeking marriage the legal ability to do so.
Her refusal was nothing mere, it was a blatant act of refusal to comply with the LAW

A leader makes decisions.

A good leader makes decisions in accordance with established protocols

A leader occasionally breaks rules.
Maybe sometimes even the law.

A representative of the government cannot be permitted to break the LAW that is imposed by such government.
If there is a problem with the LAW a government representative must still comply with said LAW until the public recedes such law.
In Pittsburgh, PA it is still illegal to have sex in top of a refrigerator and if a cop sees you doing it you should be arrested and tried. It doesn't matter what the law is, If it is a law it must be upheld by the representatives of that jurisdiction.

Because the law, created by humans, is fallible and subject to change.

Yes. Laws are changed all the time. But no matter how unjust or superfluous a law is, until it is rescinded it is still law. The gay marriage law was hotly debated and very unlikely to be rescinded. But, anything could happen. Point is, It IS law NOW and is legal.

She represents a face

Yes, and it may lead to a reevaluation of the law but at present the law exists and must be honored.

 

[Guest50131]

Should employees be allowed to use religion to not do job duties?.

Tom, you and I regard the law very very differently.

We are a nation of individuals.

And this woman isn't an employee.

She's YOUR representative. She votes, based on her perspective, experience, and education, and represents you based on her desire to balance you and your needs - as a constituent - with her own - her experiences - and that which is being asked of her.

A representative your nation incarcerated for making a decision contrary to a law passed at a different level than you elected her as.

She was elected for her ability to act as an individual.

And as she exercised that individuality.

You struck her down.

Jailed her.

Based on grounds she refused to act with unquestioning obedience to her chain of command external to you.

Just what kind of society are you forming for a future should you continue following this course?

Now me. I am fine with this. That chain of command crawls right up that ladder to me, which segues magnificently to Terminator warfare and the US population becoming Borg which for me would be perfectly fine from an entertainment perspective.

Not my immediate preference.

But it will happen happening sooner or later with my tenure.

In your case though. In this world's case.

Do you see the precedence this is setting?

The... peek into the future we're shaping together?

Are you fine with it?

I am.

I have, after all, already walked through the valley of death and lived to tell about it.

 

[Tom]

You struck her down.
Jailed her.

In my previous replies I state that she shouldn't be in jail except that she was in contempt of court

Had she consulted her supervisor that might have been avoided. A simple repositioning or hiring of a subordinate to take the task of issuance would have negated the whole ordeal.

I see precedence all over the place on this one.

As for this impact on my person - lol - non-issue

 

[Guest50131]

In my previous replies I state that she shouldn't be in jail except that she was in contempt of court

Had she consulted her supervisor that might have been avoided. A simple repositioning or hiring of a subordinate to take the task of issuance would have negated the whole ordeal.

I see precedence all over the place on this one.

As for this impact on my person - lol - non-issue

Tom - I'm going to name names because this is important to me.

In late 2010, I was subcontracted out by the NSA to Universal Technical Institute (UTI) at $1500 an hour, when I was making $55 an hour personally as a private contractor to the NSA.

I was directly reporting to Kim McWaters, CEO of UTI, and working directly with a wonderful man by the name of David Annis, who was CIO at the time who wasn't aware what I was doing in his department other than I was responsible for helping his team...

Now Ms McWaters had risen from Administrative Assistant to CEO rapidly, and in the course of that - she stepped on her share of toes - in particular - a director who tried getting her fired who in turned she managed to dubiously get him fired as she took a lateral directors role.

Rumor was, she slept with a superior, and took advantage of the 'position', pardon the pun.

A few years later - she achieved CEO - but that wasm't enough.

Now the NSA - since around the time of the banking crisis - has always been in the business of supporting American companies domestically and abroad - particularly those experiencing trouble.

Kim had presented a 'need' to the NSA - which led to the hiring of two private contractors, one to manage development teams, the other - to work across management disciplines and figure out what's impairing the organization informationally and thus economically.

The requirements for the latter role meant leveraging hacking and security skills to obtain that information as quickly as possible with no intrusion awareness.

That man was me.

About four months into the role, news came out about her former director - who had made CEO of his company. That day in her office, I learned how much she loathed this man, but when I asked why she hated him so much, she became extremely offended and said (and I quote) "Cant someone just hate someone just to frackin hate them?"

It was at that point she demanded I hack his personal and professional email account - and backdate emails to make it look like he was having an affair, and plant information which would make it appear as though he had invested heavily based on this relationship with this woman who worked for a competitive company, to which he personally profited off the relationship which led to the diminished value of this company and which placed him in a position which made him CEO for his company.

Then, she asked me to 'slip' emails to news sources detailing this information.

Now mind you. All of this was absolutely fabricated. But here Ms McWaters was - with a monstrous chip on her shoulder - wanting to put this man in jail for insider trading, and break up his marriage with the infidelity and duplicity.

I said no.

Adamantly refused to.

"You are a government employee, I paid for you, you do not have a choice in the matter!,' she screamed at me in the office that day. By then I had developed extraordinarily thick skin, but the yelling was sufficiently loud enough the administrative assistant I knew outside the office said to me later "I have never heard her yell at someone like that. What did you do?"

Kim called me into her office two days later.

Calmer. But the same request was asked of me.

"No, Kim, You're going to have to find a different consultant, that's just f*d up and I won't do that."

The next week I was called to DC.

"You're going to do what you're told with Ms McWaters, or else," I was told by my superior.

I was 5 months away from my contract being over with the NSA, so I dug my heels in.

"I choose or else," I said smugly.

Five months later, I had all my personal assets seized. To the tune of $3 million USD. The NSA refused to honor my contract payment - $8 million owed. And for two years, every resume I sent out and phone call I made to potential employers and/or lawyers ended up falling into a black hole, never to be heard from again.

My point to this story is this:

The American public sees the government and government employees as tools.

They serve utility functions.

We're not 'real' people.

So when we're told to do something we morally disagree with, you feel it's a part of our job and responsibility to provide you an amenable solution on how to achieve your goals.

That's total and utter bullshit and laziness on your part.

You have expendable income. It's your right to get exactly what you want with that income - in violation of other people's ethics and morals because you paid for it, right?

And when people refuse to do what they are 'paid to do', American law is being used now to force people to do things against their will.

So if they do not respond to money.

Then by God they will respond to punishment for their disobedience.

Look, I am mostly a fan of capitalism.

But logically.

There's others out there the gay community can go to to obtain their marriage certificate.

She's a person, not a tool, and made a decision as a leader to question the potentiality of there being corruption in the legal system because what she was told to do seemed to violate the ethics of her perception of the country's values - and her own.

If it wasn't for people like her who question the 'law' when it violates her own code of conduct, we wouldn't have a country.

Tom you were in the military.

Did you ever have a Sergeant tell you "If I was ordered to clear a minefield without detectors, since you're a PFC, I'd command you to get out there. If you were blown up, I would send another PFC."

Playing a video game, that's fine and dandy.

But this is real life, bub.

And the country WAS one man one woman.

This woman is merely doing what she should and questioning the laws.

This doesn't make her wrong.

She merely needs to be shown why this is happening.

 

[Tom]

First, and importantly, what Kim asked you to do was against the law. Why you have not gone to the press over this is one question. The NSA, being a government agency must have an oversight committee. At the very least find a senator that dislikes her and tell them.

Lets imagine that Ms Davis wins her battle and gets reinstated and continues to fail to process Gay marriage applications:

Sheriff Bart was elected Sheriff last year to patrol, protect and serve his community. He got religion two months ago. Well, last month a 3 year battle with the zoning board approved a Casino and Concert Venue in his jurisdiction. Sheriff Bart sees gambling and rock concerts as evil. He no longer patrols, protects or serves the Entertainment District of his town. The businesses hire on their own security forces to try to maintain the peace but crime continues to escalate. The Mayor directs Sheriff Bart to start performing his duty there immediately but Sheriff Bart refuses on religious grounds. He suggests that if police action is required in that 'zone' to contact the nearest Sheriff from a nearby town.

Postmaster Bob handles all the mail coming into his quaint little berg. Postmaster Bob has been doing a fine job until just recently when he developed an aversion to handwritten addresses. He established a rule that requires all addresses to be typed on every package and every parcel including letters. If the address is hand written he will not send it or deliver it. People can take their ungodly scrawled addresses to the next city to mail them.

At Walmart you can't check out unless there is a supervisor present because old people steal.

The hospital emergency room won't take you because older men are sinners

The fire dept won't come to your neighborhood because it is low income and filled with bad people.

Things can spiral into a crazy loop if this is not handled correctly.

 

[Kevin]

Lets imagine that Ms Davis wins her battle and gets reinstated and continues to fail to process Gay marriage applications:

CNN is reporting that she'll be released today because the judge who found her in contempt is satisfied that the court ruling is now being obeyed because in Ms. Davis's absence others have been issuing licenses. Her lawyer, however, has already issued a statement that if/when Ms. Davis returns to her job that not only will she once again refuse to issue licenses but she'll direct the employees to immediately stop issuing licenses also and will work to invalidate the licenses issued in her absence.

If that happens, politics in Kentucky & the US will get interesting in the weeks ahead.

 

[Guest50131]

First, and importantly, what Kim asked you to do was against the law. Why you have not gone to the press over this is one question. The NSA, being a government agency must have an oversight committee. At the very least find a senator that dislikes her and tell them.

Lets imagine that Ms Davis wins her battle and gets reinstated and continues to fail to process Gay marriage applications:

Sheriff Bart was elected Sheriff last year to patrol, protect and serve his community. He got religion two months ago. Well, last month a 3 year battle with the zoning board approved a Casino and Concert Venue in his jurisdiction. Sheriff Bart sees gambling and rock concerts as evil. He no longer patrols, protects or serves the Entertainment District of his town. The businesses hire on their own security forces to try to maintain the peace but crime continues to escalate. The Mayor directs Sheriff Bart to start performing his duty there immediately but Sheriff Bart refuses on religious grounds. He suggests that if police action is required in that 'zone' to contact the nearest Sheriff from a nearby town.

Postmaster Bob handles all the mail coming into his quaint little berg. Postmaster Bob has been doing a fine job until just recently when he developed an aversion to handwritten addresses. He established a rule that requires all addresses to be typed on every package and every parcel including letters. If the address is hand written he will not send it or deliver it. People can take their ungodly scrawled addresses to the next city to mail them.

At Walmart you can't check out unless there is a supervisor present because old people steal.

The hospital emergency room won't take you because older men are sinners

The fire dept won't come to your neighborhood because it is low income and filled with bad people.

Things can spiral into a crazy loop if this is not handled correctly.

Tom. Feel free to report what I have said to the press. You have the full story of what happened.

Be real about this though. I'm homeless. I've had all my personal assets seized. I have been totally discredited publicly, and have been completely ostracized from my friends and family.

Lawyers wont return my calls. The press ignores me. My friends and family are long gone.

I mean. Who are YOU going to believe, the homeless man who happens to be very good with computers but has a crazy story to tell, or the respectable, model citizen with a high paying job and title to match?

Naw, The Press is too afraid of litigation and lawyers who themselves are too busy looking for predictable revenue which will provide a predictable victory and notch on their belt.

To reply to your hypotheticals:

Yep they could happen. And many more. We will deal with them when they come one by one.

There's a glut of lawyers that's already hitting the market as of last year, a market response to the contrived scarcity.

Do you prefer they work to create more laws and make living life more difficult through more laws?

Or do you prefer they have cases to work on?

Don't worry about precedence.

With so many lawyers out there, each case of resistance to conformity will be individually isolated and dealt with accordingly.

Quit predicting the worst, Tom. The best can happen too.

I implore you to write positive stories and potentials about this event without being sarcastic or facetious.

Consider that my challenge in creative writing to you.

You're always handing us creative challenges ;-)

 

[Guest50131]

CNN is reporting that she'll be released today because the judge who found her in contempt is satisfied that the court ruling is now being obeyed because in Ms. Davis's absence others have been issuing licenses. Her lawyer, however, has already issued a statement that if/when Ms. Davis returns to her job that not only will she once again refuse to issue licenses but she'll direct the employees to immediately stop issuing licenses also and will work to invalidate the licenses issued in her absence.

If that happens, politics in Kentucky & the US will get interesting in the weeks ahead.

For once, i am actually looking forward to reading the news.

 

[Tom]

from facebook
and it starts

 

[Guest50131]

from facebook
and it starts

Oh Tom. While one snowflake can certainly start an avalanche.

The chance of it actually happening is like getting struck by a lightning.

By the way. You do realize that's a meme, right? A joke.

Certainly not reflective of real life.

I thought I taught my AI better than that!

 

[Kevin]

By the way. You do realize that's a meme, right? A joke.

Certainly not reflective of real life.

I don't know, have you done much shopping at Wal-mart?

 

[Guest50131]

I don't know, have you done much shopping at Wal-mart?

I have, and no matter where I go, there's always a wide array of personalities no matter the location I go.

As a homeless man, I have people behind checkout counters flat out walk away to let someone and won't work with me. Now in my situation, I dont want to explain to them that I can walk next door to the Starbucks, and through their name and place of work alone I can trace down anything I want to know about them -and in 30 minutes I can drain their bank accounts, tap all their credit cards, and wreck their relationship and leave them homeless within 30 days as well.

But I don't.

Why?

I dont enjoy being homeless. And I understand the disdain they have for someone in my position.

I understand they do not see me as a person.

They see me as an idea and concept they fear and don't want in their lives.

And I forgive them for that.

And for me, it's just as easy to go to the next checkout person who chooses to look at me as a person.

It's not my job to punish them for their insolent behavior.

I don't need them to see me as a person to know I am a person.

Same thing can be said of this lady being punished here.

You're trying to teach her to respect others as people not as objects and ideas and concepts.

When you yourself treat her as a nail that needs to be hammered down and not the person she is.

 

[Jethro]

Jeez you Americans are funny people. You get employed to do a job, if you subsequently find moral or legal issues with the tasks assigned to you then you raise an objection, if the Employer is unable or doesn't want to change the designated job then you have the option of resigning on moral or other grounds, generally before your Employer decides you are not fit to perform the duties your job requires.

If the woman above has an issue with Gay marriage then she is unfit to perform her duties in a State that has acceptable Gay marriage, perhaps she could move to Australia where our Right-wing Government refuses to contemplate same sex equality.

A jail term seems draconian, simply sack her due to her being unable to perform her duties, and then if she has some legal recourse fight it out in the Courts, for once "City Hall" will probably have won the PR battle already

Sorry just remembered the U.S doesn't have Common Law to fall back on like we do in the Commonwealth, simply put "what would the average person do or expect in a given situation", ergo if a Vegan scores a job at a steakhouse and then refuses to serve steaks he/she has no recourse if they are sacked, the average person would expect a steakhouse to serve, you know, meat.

 

[Guest50131]

Jeez you Americans are funny people. You get employed to do a job, if you subsequently find moral or legal issues with the tasks assigned to you then you raise an objection, if the Employer is unable or doesn't want to change the designated job then you have the option of resigning on moral or other grounds, generally before your Employer decides you are not fit to perform the duties your job requires.

If the woman above has an issue with Gay marriage then she is unfit to perform her duties in a State that has acceptable Gay marriage, perhaps she could move to Australia where our Right-wing Government refuses to contemplate same sex equality.

A jail term seems draconian, simply sack her due to her being unable to perform her duties, and then if she has some legal recourse fight it out in the Courts, for once "City Hall" will probably have won the PR battle already

Sorry just remembered the U.S doesn't have Common Law to fall back on like we do in the Commonwealth, simply put "what would the average person do or expect in a given situation", ergo if a Vegan scores a job at a steakhouse and then refuses to serve steaks he/she has no recourse if they are sacked, the average person would expect a steakhouse to serve, you know, meat.

Jethro, usually I respect perspectives form outside the United States - but typically they are more insightful and demonstrate a bit more intelligence than yours.

Elected positions are uniquely different and many, like myself who actually do regularly exercise our right to vote - understand there's much more to these elected positions than a job.

When I vote for someone in an elected position. I don't vote for someone to fill a job vacancy. I vote for someone to speak on my behalf and represent me. I vote on someone to carry with them their experience, their background, their intellectual, educational, and professional background, and to make decisions weighing what's best for us.

I occasionally break laws. I'm not an anarchist, mind you, but when laws do not work for me, I'm making a statement to the world that I'm not happy with the way things are working. Sure, there are other more elegant ways to achieve providing feedback, if you feel like have your voice drowned out in a chorus of voices. Just like with Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, and the man who stood in front of the tank to resist world war in China at Tiananmen square - SOMETIMES you gotta find more productive ways to make your voice be heard above the cacophony.

When a leader does NOT exercise their obligation and right to say no.

Society can be a blurry balance between extremes at times.

Can be. but not always.

And right now, the balance has leaned so far towards supporting collective norms - concerning itself with the precedence being set of individuality and individual decisions - that you all seem to fear it.

You're right. We do NOT have a common law system established for the rights of the individual, for a very simple reason: we recognize that society evolves and changes over time, and to codify the rights of the individual is to restrict choice.

The United States codifies interactions between society and the individual.

In this case.

It's my belief that the young who have just entered this society for the first time do not understand the difference between a job and an elected representative. So they treat the responsibilities with the same expectations, and as a result, you have someone in jail who as you said - is a 'draconian measure' which should never have occurred if people had simple removed their heads from the collective arses and understood what that vote represents.

It's my bet that 90% of those who support strong measures against this person who they perceive as derelict in their duties do not vote. Accordingly, they don't understand who this person said 'no' for.

For the morons out there who think this sets precedence for all employees. who don't seem to know or understand the differences between an elected official and an employee.

Seriously. I wish I stop time Adam Sandler style and b*tch slap you like he does with David Hasselhoff.

You're being that ignorant.