Do you think any of the following (in each case, assume that the relevant action, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. is legal) is acceptable (i.e. a person doing so does not face any negative consequences, including dismissal), if done for religious or ideological reasons:
- a judge of peace (or local equivalent) refusing to officiate a (civil) marriage for a gay couple,
- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,
- a gynecologist refusing to perform abortion,
- a pharmacist refusing to sell contraceptives,
- a grocery store clerk refusing to handle pork,
- a surgeon refusing to conduct blood transfussions,
- a bus driver refusing to drive a bus with an ad of a Republican party painted on it,
- a policeman refusing to take a crime report from a black person,
- an attorney refusing to defend a Jewish person.
Please justify your response especially if you think some of these are acceptable and others are not.
First, you use the term "public functionaries", then you use the terms "religious or ideological reasons" which are privately held convictions.
There's plenty of room for you to bitch about something, Marty, you don't have to square-peg round-hole your argument. Numbnuts.
Lulz, he said "round-hole".
These people are denying people public services for ideological reasons. If you have a job you are bound by the job description. I am not insensitive to such moral quandries so the standard that needs to be set is not one where you are obliged to perform a task you find morally reprehensible but rather that it is satisfactory if the task is performed.
Basically if your morals deny the public access to public services you have to either go against your morals or quit (or be fired).
This smells like a trap.
Fags are damaging to society, and so don't deserve to share equally in the benefits.
Quote from: Viking on April 23, 2012, 07:12:44 AM
These people are denying people public services for ideological reasons.
Not all of these services are public. And not all of these service providers are, either.
QuoteIf you have a job you are bound by the job description.
Not necessarily.
QuoteBasically if your morals deny the public access to public services you have to either go against your morals or quit (or be fired).
Not necessarily, as you probably wouldn't have been hired in the first place. :P
Some of those positions are more public than others. At least around here being a JP is often either a part-time, or merely an honourary, position. A shopkeeper isn't public at all. Doctors and pharmacists aren't public servants, even though ultimately it is the government which pays.
I don't understand much of the question - too many examples that are not equivalent.
Can a gynecologist refuse to perform abortions? Sure. It doesn't have to be for religious reasons, either. Ditto for a lawyer declining to accept someone as a client (though, obviously, a public defender cannot decline to represent a given client for religious or ideological reasons). JPs are not, I believe, required to perform any particular service for any particular person, so one could get away with refusing service on other grounds, though not, I believe, or religious or ideological ones. Ditto for pharmacists, except that they probably could get away with religious claims.
Grocery clerks are not government employees or "functionaries," insofar as I know. No surgeon of which i am aware does blood transfusions him/herself.
The adoption agency, (public) bus driver, and policeman examples would all be unacceptable to pretty much everyone, I should think.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 05:42:18 AM- a judge of peace (or local equivalent) refusing to officiate a (civil) marriage for a gay couple,
Marriages are officiated by civil servants here. As long as the state does provide that service equally, I don't have a problem with allowing individual civil servants to refuse to officiate over gay marriages. No one is harmed and no one is forced to do something against their conscience. Win-win.
Quote- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,
Illegal discrimination.
Quote- a gynecologist refusing to perform abortion,
- a pharmacist refusing to sell contraceptives,
- a grocery store clerk refusing to handle pork,
These aren't public functionaries and they are free to do whatever they want.
Quote- a surgeon refusing to conduct blood transfussions,
That's probably against the Hippocratic Oath and thus illegal.
Quote- a bus driver refusing to drive a bus with an ad of a Republican party painted on it,
That's just an issue between him and his employer. Bus drivers aren't public functionaries.
Quote- a policeman refusing to take a crime report from a black person,
Clearly illegal.
Quote- an attorney refusing to defend a Jewish person.
He's probably an asshole but as long as he is not a public defender I don't see why he would have to.
Thread needs more bad analogies.
Quote from: PDH on April 23, 2012, 09:50:54 AM
Thread needs more bad analogies.
A question that presumes lawyers have any conscience at all is like a question that presumes that fish have bank accounts.
Quote from: PDH on April 23, 2012, 09:50:54 AM
Thread needs more bad analogies.
People who refuse to post in this thread, cannot use the "conscience clause" defence as languish is a public service.
Quote from: Zanza on April 23, 2012, 09:48:36 AM
Quote- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,
Illegal discrimination.
Would your answer be different if they were refusing to service same sex couples?
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 23, 2012, 07:14:08 AM
This smells like a trap.
It smells like Marty embarrassing himself again.
You know, since you were going there anyway, you should have just started there. You don't do circuitous well :lol:
Quote from: HVC on April 23, 2012, 10:43:40 AM
You know, since you were going there anyway, you should have just started there. You don't do circuitous well :lol:
Marty's about as transparent as a sliding glass window.
Too bad he keeps putting his head through it.
Actually, I'm most surprised by some of you being fine with the state official refusing to officiate legal marriage. This to me is the most blatant case of discrimination, and the most heinous one.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
Actually, I'm most surprised by some of you being fine with the state official refusing to officiate legal marriage. This to me is the most blatant case of discrimination, and the most heinous one.
That's because it wouldn't happen, dummy. Legal marriage = legal. State official = bound by state law.
If there's anything heinous going on here, it's your constant and consistent misinterpretation of the terms "legal" and "law" around here.
For fuck's sake, you want to start an argument, start one already.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
Actually, I'm most surprised by some of you being fine with the state official refusing to officiate legal marriage. This to me is the most blatant case of discrimination, and the most heinous one.
Justices of the Peace are much different in the US than Poland, it would seem. A JP in the US is not a state official; he or she is someone who has been deputized to act in the place of a state official for specific functions. A full-time town clerk with the power to officiate at civil ceremonies could not deny a gay couple's lawful request for his services, but a US JP could; US JPs are only "civil officials" when they want to be.
I'm
not the most surprised that your
are the most surprised over an issue which arises from you misunderstanding the issue that you raised. :P
Quote from: grumbler on April 23, 2012, 11:20:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
Actually, I'm most surprised by some of you being fine with the state official refusing to officiate legal marriage. This to me is the most blatant case of discrimination, and the most heinous one.
Justices of the Peace are much different in the US than Poland, it would seem. A JP in the US is not a state official; he or she is someone who has been deputized to act in the place of a state official for specific functions.
Depends on the state; in Delaware, for instance, the Justice of the Peace is a sworn judge dealing with traffic and criminal dockets.
Now in Pennsylvania, yeah, your definition is more accurate. They're different from the judges, more like magistrates that are elected for a variety of civil processes.
Been arrested in a lot of places, huh Seedy? :unsure: :P
Quote from: HVC on April 23, 2012, 11:40:52 AM
Been arrested in a lot of places, huh Seedy? :unsure: :P
Spent a lot of nights in Night Court, my friend. Read a lot of books on those wooden ass benches. :lol:
The untold stories of the bails bondsman :D. Ever miss it? I know it could be aggravating, but at least the idiots were criminals not evy league rich boys.
I spent of nights watching Night Court and prayed to the baby jesus that Markie Post would let me bang her.
Evy league? :huh:
Quote from: katmai on April 23, 2012, 11:50:05 AM
Evy league? :huh:
I blame my phone. I know I'm bad but not that bad. I know some named Evy ( no not one of the strippers :P ) and it must have autocorrected.
Quote from: HVC on April 23, 2012, 11:47:00 AM
The untold stories of the bails bondsman :D. Ever miss it? I know it could be aggravating, but at least the idiots were criminals not evy league rich boys.
Yeah, actually I do, more often than not. :lol: No Customer Service. No Human Resources. No "reaching out" to "make bridges" with "stakeholders" over "forward-facing synergies". Gimme my money, or pack your toothbrush. Get your Momma to sign, or you don't get out.
From time to time I think about getting back into it, but it's a young man's gig, and there simply isn't the money in it anymore. At least not in Maryland, and it's the kind of thing you really need to know the local scene, it's not something you just up and relocate to another city for. I couldn't do it anywhere but Mobtown.
So, now I'm just reliving it vicariously by writing about it, which happens to be much safer and less frustrating. :lol:
I do miss my sledgehammer, though. Used a label maker for all the doors we broke down with it. It was like a Stanley Cup for the 'hood.:(
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 10:35:40 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 23, 2012, 09:48:36 AM
Quote- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,
Illegal discrimination.
Would your answer be different if they were refusing to service same sex couples?
As far as I know same sex couples can't adopt here, but that's certainly not a policy that I support. So it would not be illegal with the current legislation, but I am hopeful that legislation will change during the next few years.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
Actually, I'm most surprised by some of you being fine with the state official refusing to officiate legal marriage. This to me is the most blatant case of discrimination, and the most heinous one.
The state forcing a civil servant to go against his or her conscience is not a good idea either. Just let another civil servant officiate who doesn't have qualms. What's gained by forcing a civil servant to act against their conscience? That won't make for a nice marriage either.
What if the President is a pacifist and the Germans invade? lolololol
Quote from: Zanza on April 23, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
Actually, I'm most surprised by some of you being fine with the state official refusing to officiate legal marriage. This to me is the most blatant case of discrimination, and the most heinous one.
The state forcing a civil servant to go against his or her conscience is not a good idea either. Just let another civil servant officiate who doesn't have qualms. What's gained by forcing a civil servant to act against their conscience? That won't make for a nice marriage either.
And if it's the 1950s and the civil servant doesn't want to grant services based on race? Let's say he doesn't believe in miscegenation. :rolleyes:
How about we fire civil servants who can't do their jobs without forcing their biases into their work.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 05:42:18 AM
Do you think any of the following (in each case, assume that the relevant action, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. is legal) is acceptable (i.e. a person doing so does not face any negative consequences, including dismissal), if done for religious or ideological reasons:
- a judge of peace (or local equivalent) refusing to officiate a (civil) marriage for a gay couple,
- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,
- a gynecologist refusing to perform abortion,
- a pharmacist refusing to sell contraceptives,
- a grocery store clerk refusing to handle pork,
- a surgeon refusing to conduct blood transfussions,
- a bus driver refusing to drive a bus with an ad of a Republican party painted on it,
- a policeman refusing to take a crime report from a black person,
- an attorney refusing to defend a Jewish person.
Please justify your response especially if you think some of these are acceptable and others are not.
All of the above are clearly grounds for dismissal if they violate the policies of their employer or applicable regulations or law.
P.S.: only like four or five of those are public functionaries, and one of them is only a public functionary in certain situations which you did not define.
Sorry, I see this was already dealt with.
Quote from: Fate on April 23, 2012, 02:48:27 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 23, 2012, 01:48:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
Actually, I'm most surprised by some of you being fine with the state official refusing to officiate legal marriage. This to me is the most blatant case of discrimination, and the most heinous one.
The state forcing a civil servant to go against his or her conscience is not a good idea either. Just let another civil servant officiate who doesn't have qualms. What's gained by forcing a civil servant to act against their conscience? That won't make for a nice marriage either.
And if it's the 1950s and the civil servant doesn't want to grant services based on race? Let's say he doesn't believe in miscegenation. :rolleyes:
How about we fire civil servants who can't do their jobs without forcing their biases into their work.
I thought a bit more about it and I guess you are right. Officiating on civil marriage is not something that would fall under conscientious issues and it's not necessary to accomodate for whatever worldview a civil servant has. Civil servants need to obey their superiors and fulfill all legal tasks given to them.
One exception that I can think of is police officers that refuse to be the sniper who shoots a kipnapper. Deliberately killing a human is where I would draw the line between what the state may demand of its civil servants and what it may not demand.
Quote from: Zanza on April 23, 2012, 03:31:04 PM
One exception that I can think of is police officers that refuse to be the sniper who shoots a kipnapper.
OMG think of the kips!
:P
Quote from: Ideologue on April 23, 2012, 03:21:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 05:42:18 AM
Do you think any of the following (in each case, assume that the relevant action, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. is legal) is acceptable (i.e. a person doing so does not face any negative consequences, including dismissal), if done for religious or ideological reasons:
- a judge of peace (or local equivalent) refusing to officiate a (civil) marriage for a gay couple,
- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,
- a gynecologist refusing to perform abortion,
- a pharmacist refusing to sell contraceptives,
- a grocery store clerk refusing to handle pork,
- a surgeon refusing to conduct blood transfussions,
- a bus driver refusing to drive a bus with an ad of a Republican party painted on it,
- a policeman refusing to take a crime report from a black person,
- an attorney refusing to defend a Jewish person.
Please justify your response especially if you think some of these are acceptable and others are not.
All of the above are clearly grounds for dismissal if they violate the policies of their employer or applicable regulations or law.
Yep, and whether any of us find them "acceptable" or not has no bearing on the whether or not they violate such laws or policies.
Quote from: Zanza on April 23, 2012, 03:31:04 PM
One exception that I can think of is police officers that refuse to be the sniper who shoots a kipnapper. Deliberately killing a human is where I would draw the line between what the state may demand of its civil servants and what it may not demand.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcoilhouse.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FMdL3j.gif&hash=317afd945de1652f3534687773bb026358255a7b)
We ruined the Germans. :(
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 05:42:18 AM
Do you think any of the following (in each case, assume that the relevant action, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. is legal) is acceptable (i.e. a person doing so does not face any negative consequences, including dismissal), if done for religious or ideological reasons:
- a judge of peace (or local equivalent) refusing to officiate a (civil) marriage for a gay couple,
Yes. This type of marriage is illegal in 42 jurisdictions in the United States. Thus, in any one of those jurisdictions, it would be justifiable. Additionally, in many states, Justices of Peace do not have the power to marry someone.
- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,
Not in America.
- a gynecologist refusing to perform abortion,
There are literally thousands of legitimate, non-ideological medical reasons to not perform a given abortion.
- a pharmacist refusing to sell contraceptives,
Yes. If people want to drive away their business, let them.
- a grocery store clerk refusing to handle pork,
Again, other people can do the work.
- a surgeon refusing to conduct blood transfussions,
Generally, surgeons don't do transfusions; they're too busy doing the fucking surgery. Hematologists or phlebotomists under a hematologist or surgeon's direction would do one.
- a bus driver refusing to drive a bus with an ad of a Republican party painted on it,
Well, if he wants to lose his job, I understand that 15 million americans are unemployed. At least one of them has a CDL.
- a policeman refusing to take a crime report from a black person,
Cops refuse to file crime reports all the time. I think refusing to file a report is a crime, regardless of the circumstances. It's certainly a violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.
- an attorney refusing to defend a Jewish person.
Yes. I can refuse to take any case I want as a private attorney. Now, Jews generally have money, and I generally need money. So I would defend a Jew, unless they were charged with a felony within the city limits of Hattiesburg, because that would be a clear conflict of interest. Also, I would have to avoid other conflicts. So there are literally untold numbers of reasons why and how an attorney could refuse to defend a particular Jew.
Please justify your response especially if you think some of these are acceptable and others are not.
I generally think this set of questions is a great example of why all other Slavs revile Polacks.
Quote from: Scipio on April 23, 2012, 08:37:04 PM
Cops refuse to file crime reports all the time. I think refusing to file a report is a crime, regardless of the circumstances. It's certainly a violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:lol:
There are complaints, and then there are complaints that require reports.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2012, 08:16:08 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 23, 2012, 03:31:04 PM
One exception that I can think of is police officers that refuse to be the sniper who shoots a kipnapper. Deliberately killing a human is where I would draw the line between what the state may demand of its civil servants and what it may not demand.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcoilhouse.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FMdL3j.gif&hash=317afd945de1652f3534687773bb026358255a7b)
Not sure why somebody who's against killing would have sniper training to begin with.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 23, 2012, 03:21:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2012, 05:42:18 AM
Do you think any of the following (in each case, assume that the relevant action, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. is legal) is acceptable (i.e. a person doing so does not face any negative consequences, including dismissal), if done for religious or ideological reasons:
- a judge of peace (or local equivalent) refusing to officiate a (civil) marriage for a gay couple,
- a state-funded adoption agency refusing to service mixed racial couples,
- a gynecologist refusing to perform abortion,
- a pharmacist refusing to sell contraceptives,
- a grocery store clerk refusing to handle pork,
- a surgeon refusing to conduct blood transfussions,
- a bus driver refusing to drive a bus with an ad of a Republican party painted on it,
- a policeman refusing to take a crime report from a black person,
- an attorney refusing to defend a Jewish person.
Please justify your response especially if you think some of these are acceptable and others are not.
All of the above are clearly grounds for dismissal if they violate the policies of their employer or applicable regulations or law.
Basically this.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 23, 2012, 08:18:35 PM
We ruined the Germans. :(
Well, he might not shoot him, but he'd eat him.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 23, 2012, 10:52:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2012, 08:16:08 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 23, 2012, 03:31:04 PM
One exception that I can think of is police officers that refuse to be the sniper who shoots a kipnapper. Deliberately killing a human is where I would draw the line between what the state may demand of its civil servants and what it may not demand.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcoilhouse.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2FMdL3j.gif&hash=317afd945de1652f3534687773bb026358255a7b)
Not sure why somebody who's against killing would have sniper training to begin with.
The same reason all those people who were against war joined the US Army and the National Guard and then had to flee the country when the Iraq war started up.