(05-18-2017 03:21 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 01:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  A government employee isn't a person...they ARE the state so long as they are performing or refusing to perform their duties.

Might want to let the SEIU know that.

Meh, I'm sure there are plenty of evangelicals in the SEIU. Might not vote like you'd like them to, but they're in it. And they serve non-Union people equally within the context of their job duties.

(05-17-2017 06:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 05:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  LOL. A more appropriate analogy would be as follows

One clerk, who is a full time employee and has higher pay and training handles the whites...and another, part time random guy off the street or lower level employee handles blacks...but not at the same times.

BTW, we know of at least two counties where this will be an issue.

That's your opinion, Tom. You're once again assuming numerous facts not in evidence... that the part-time employee (that's YOUR supposition by the way, and doesn't appear anywhere in the bill that I see) is somehow just some yahoo off the street...

Odd that you demean their job as simply rubber-stamping forms at one moment, and then act like it takes some special training when that suits your argument better.

I don't think you'd win the argument. Obviously the State of Texas doesn't think you'll win either... Obama didn't think Heller would win either.

You simply aren't serving your purpose by insulting everyone and acting like there isn't another side to any story involving gays.

Actually youre correct..it isn't a part-time county employee that SB 522 authorizes to handle the Gay marriage licenses.....its some completely random person off the street who specifically DOESNT have to be county employee.

I'm sure that the judges that are specifically listed in the bill would be happy to know that you consider them some completely random person off the street who may not be employed by the county.

You're not helping your argument by being so insulting, Tom... especially when you follow it by complaining that you're being insulted.

Quote:So the County Clerks office can still be 100 percent homophobic and not have to have anyone who doesn't hate Gay people in it. And by hate, I mean to the point of insulting people and refusing the serve them.

Yeah... (going along with your hypothetical, despite its lack of demonstrability or logic) so you don't go to the county clerk's office but instead to the municipal judge's office... so what? The judge's office is probably nicer with shorter lines.

Quote:So telling Gay people to get inferior service, by lesser trained persons, spend more time and money to do so, get insulted, spend more time and money to do so....is okay in your book?

Nope... You just haven't demonstrated any of that happening.

Quote:What other side is there to it.

The one you can demonstrate, and not the illogical one you fantasize about

Quote:That some Mullah or Christian equivalent of one wants to institute his or her religious beliefs as county law and issue punishments and official disapproval of the county onto Gay persons.

Maybe a government employee who WON'T serve people equally and with dignity shouldn't be a government employee.

How is this any different than a county banning access to the white water fountain to Blacks and then providing some substandard, less costly, less well located, fountain somewhere else for them?

Please tell me why you think that a County Clerk's desire to insult and demean Gay people and punish them for having the gall to get a marriage license should take precedence over Gay peoples ability to interact equally with the state. And also, why Gay people should have to bear 100% percent of the humiliation, delay, and cost of such an action.

She isn't a person behind that counter. She is the state.

Jesus, so much drama Tom... good lord.

People and governments are responsible for what they say and do... and not what you assume they mean by it.

The very obvious issue is a conflict in moral codes... where a county employee has been asked to do something that is against his religion and perhaps not what he agreed to do when he was hired. If this were a Muslim employee whose job it was to collect 'road kill' being asked to clean a carcass of a dead pig off of the street, a 'polite' society would do its best to accommodate that person's beliefs, perhaps incurring extra expenses and/or delay for the people on that street who deserve no less than anyone else, but they get mildly inconvenienced, perhaps even having to drive out of their way or wait longer to accommodate that employee. If some Islamophobic jack-hole threw a fit claiming that his constitutional rights to equal protection were infringed by this religious zealot trying to force his will on everyone else... saying he imagined that he might have to drive 200 miles out of his way in order to avoid the 'mess' or had to wait hours while some less skilled and trained yahoo off the street used a house broom and water bottle rather than professional equipment to provide the county service.... and that he had to bear the insult and indignation of having that carcass there .... You'd rightly claim the guy was a racist jack-hole. That would especially be true if the person's job description had changed since they were hired... He's a skilled an experienced person who simply has a religious objection to swine... and he took a job that didn't include having to do that. Sure, we could just fire him... You think anyone would claim that violated his constitutional rights?

Things are changing, Tom... and they're moving your way. I GET that you want them to move faster.... but insulting everyone else and 'making up' indignation only shuts people down and slows your progress. I simply don't understand why you don't get this. Your fantasies don't convince ONE single person.

The bill should mandate that everyone go to the same person and get the same signature. And the bill authorizes a magistrate, but doesn't MANDATE that one do it, or that it be someone in the same county. This is critically important.

Why does the bill authorize the hiring of random flunkies off the street that don't work for the county full time if the intent isn't to stop Gay people from getting served by their county.

Why not just say... 'if you can't serve Gays, you can't serve ANYONE'. Therefore, everyone has to go through the same process.

If it's law that homosexuals can marry anyone that works in an office that has to provide those marriages doesn't agree for whatever reason with that policy there is only one thing that that person can do, it's to resign.

As a public service worker I wouldn't ask any questions regarding sexual preference, religion, or whatever. I was trained to provide a service and that's what I did. I would never refuse my services to anyone because of my religious beliefs. I would practice what the Bible says, "love thy neighbor". It's God's to decide on matters like that. It doesn't mean that I like gay marriages but if it's law then I have no problem with it. God will judge.

I give up Tom. I hate EVERYONE. You hate EVERYONE, Everybody hates EVERYONE.

I mean, if disagreeing about something that someone does equals hate for that person, there's no other conclusion. We all hate everyone.

(05-18-2017 08:30 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 07:08 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 01:12 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 12:49 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Same-sex marriage is here and staying and the 1st Amendment will continue to do what it has always done. It just won't do this thing it has never done that you think it should.

What thing is that?

Guarantee that you can keep keep getting a check from the taxpayer for a government job that you refuse to perform.

So the right of conscious / religion ends when you work for the government?

Your pain is his pleasure. Ask him, he'll gladly tell you while patting himself on the back. All smug and superior.

(05-18-2017 05:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I give up Tom. I hate EVERYONE. You hate EVERYONE, Everybody hates EVERYONE.

I mean, if disagreeing about something that someone does equals hate for that person, there's no other conclusion. We all hate everyone.

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and using your power to enforce that disagreement within the context of the state.

I do disagreeable things all the time. That's why it is called WORK. I don't get up and go to FUN when I'm working. That's why people get paid to do it.

(05-18-2017 04:32 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why not just say... 'if you can't serve Gays, you can't serve ANYONE'. Therefore, everyone has to go through the same process.

The overwhelming reality that you ignore Tom, is that it doesn't say that because it doesn't need to. Not many people actually give a damn. This is especially true in government jobs.

For those few that do, like a Muslim with a legitimate religious aversion to swine... or a desire to pray at certain times not consistent with the work hours... who on rare occasions would be asked to engage in such activities, accommodations for THEIR needs will be made in a way that, to the best ability, doesn't inconvenience those few people.

I agree... the statute shouldn't have listed any possibility to work across jurisdictions or across job descriptions... It just should have said that the county needs to find ways to make sure that people on both sides are treated with respect... but those things were put in FOR YOUR BENEFIT!

and YOU'RE still not happy. YOU want people with religious disagreements with YOUR life to accommodate you, without you having to do a damn thing to accommodate anyone else.


Serious question... Do you think businesses should do their best to accommodate Muslim prayers? I only harp on this one because most of the other ones that come to my mind are as infrequent as this one... but prayers are an every day thing. It's an imposition on EVERYONE, every day. Should the county be allowed to not hire that person (or fire them) for insisting that their break be at 2pm, even if 'Joe' isn't back from his break yet or the lines are long and we really need him now?

If you say no, that's fine. I don't agree, but it's fine. I wonder why (legally) you think you deserve accommodations but nobody else does.
If you say yes, I'd agree. I wonder why (legally) you think SOME religions deserve accommodation but not others.

'don't like it, don't take the job'? I'm literally laughing at this. I guarantee that if the only employer in town were a store that celebrated Christmas and sold bibles etc etc etc, that you'd demand that they have to hire you and sell things that disagreed with their beliefs. I can probably find threads where you said something similar, if I cared enough to look.

(05-19-2017 09:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-18-2017 05:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I give up Tom. I hate EVERYONE. You hate EVERYONE, Everybody hates EVERYONE.

I mean, if disagreeing about something that someone does equals hate for that person, there's no other conclusion. We all hate everyone.

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and using your power to enforce that disagreement within the context of the state.

I do disagreeable things all the time. That's why it is called WORK. I don't get up and go to FUN when I'm working. That's why people get paid to do it.

To clarify, you are saying there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and the LGBTXXX using its power to enforce that disagreement within the context of the state as they have done to bakers.

The responses just write themselves Tom.