![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Regarding religious beliefs
A lot of talk is going around about people's religious beliefs being denied by various laws.
I'm sorry, but in none of these cases are their beliefs or their right to express them being denied.
Instead, their right to *inflict* those beliefs on other people in the course of their job is being denied. That's a very different thing.
Kim Davis (the county clerk in Rowan county, Kentucky who just got jailed)? She took an oath to carry out the duties of her office. When those duties conflicted with her beliefs, she wanted to be able to keep the job and at the sdame time *not* do the duties she disagreed with.
Sorry, doesn't work that way. She could have issued the licenses, but that conflicts with her beliefs. Fine
She could have resigned the job and protested the issuing of licenses by whoever replaced her.
But she chose to keep the job (and the $80,000 a year salary) and *not* carry out a duty of the job. Even after a federal judge ordered her to. So now she is in jail. That's the way it works.
You either follow the law, or you do your time. As I've commented in the past, many people these days seem to forget that civil disobedience *is* breaking the law and that you should be prepared to take the consequences. You don't get to say you shouldn't *have* consequences.
Same goes for all the other folks trying to play games with marriage equality.
The businesses that don't want to serve gay customers in places where that's a violation of antidiscrimination laws. They can either serve everyone equally, or they can close the business. Or they can deal with the legal penalties. Those are the choices.
And it's *not* discrimination against their beliefs. Again, it's that we have these laws for a reason, and it's so you can't treat certain types of people as second class citizens. You are free to *nelieve* that they are inferior, sinful, or whatever. And to talk about your beliefs. But you are required to treat them like anybody else if that's your job or your business.
I'm sorry, but in none of these cases are their beliefs or their right to express them being denied.
Instead, their right to *inflict* those beliefs on other people in the course of their job is being denied. That's a very different thing.
Kim Davis (the county clerk in Rowan county, Kentucky who just got jailed)? She took an oath to carry out the duties of her office. When those duties conflicted with her beliefs, she wanted to be able to keep the job and at the sdame time *not* do the duties she disagreed with.
Sorry, doesn't work that way. She could have issued the licenses, but that conflicts with her beliefs. Fine
She could have resigned the job and protested the issuing of licenses by whoever replaced her.
But she chose to keep the job (and the $80,000 a year salary) and *not* carry out a duty of the job. Even after a federal judge ordered her to. So now she is in jail. That's the way it works.
You either follow the law, or you do your time. As I've commented in the past, many people these days seem to forget that civil disobedience *is* breaking the law and that you should be prepared to take the consequences. You don't get to say you shouldn't *have* consequences.
Same goes for all the other folks trying to play games with marriage equality.
The businesses that don't want to serve gay customers in places where that's a violation of antidiscrimination laws. They can either serve everyone equally, or they can close the business. Or they can deal with the legal penalties. Those are the choices.
And it's *not* discrimination against their beliefs. Again, it's that we have these laws for a reason, and it's so you can't treat certain types of people as second class citizens. You are free to *nelieve* that they are inferior, sinful, or whatever. And to talk about your beliefs. But you are required to treat them like anybody else if that's your job or your business.
no subject
no subject
There comes a time to render unto Caesar (or get off the pot, to mix metaphors).
I've heard her speak only once on the news, and that one time she sounded very unpleasant. That once could have been an exception, but I suspect her attitude is why she hasn't had more sound bites.
I agree that she should have resigned, but have not heard any suggestion from her, the judge or people commenting about the case in the news of her resigning or being fired. Only that she should do her job or be punished.
no subject
As I recall, her resigning *has* been brought up, and she refuses to do that either. Since the only way to get her out of the job would be for the Kentucky state legislature to impeach her (unlikely given their makeup) or for her to be convicted of a felony (making her ineligible) we'll be seeing her in jail until she wises up or her term of office expires.
Care to place any bets?
I'm sure another factor is that she pretty much inherited the position from her mother, and her son is a clerk. So I bet there's a lot of "this is *mine*" going on there too.
no subject
Bizarrely, her husband is now in the news saying "We just want the same rights 'they' have!"
Uh, excuse me, dude; you're already married!
no subject
They also want the right to refuse to do things that are against their beliefs. They've got that too *subject to the laws of the land*.
But what they don't have, and nobody else does either, is the right to refuse to carry out the duties they were hired for because of their beliefs.
The hypocrisy is thick, given that the right wing press is making a big deal out of a muslim flight attendant who wanted to not have to serve alcohol on flights.
Both she and Ms. Davis are "recent" converets. Both are very sincere.
But there's one *huge* difference. The flight attendant was asking for a "reasonable accommodation". She wasn't asking that they not serve alcohol on the flights she was on, just that she *personally* not have to do so.
That's reasonable, and while it might have been a minor inconvenience, the airline *could* have accommodated her. Be interesting to see what happens if she appeals her suspension.
Ms. Davis, on the other hand, not only didn't want to issue licenses herself, she wouldn't allow her deputies to do so either. That's no way reasonable.
Neither are the pharmacists and doctors who refusing treatment or to fill prescriptions because of their beliefs. If there's not somebody else around to do the job they won't do (and I don't mean in another town!) then they aren't doing their job.
Your right to exercise your religion ends at the point where you are trying to make other people live by your rules.
Of course, they claim that having to do their job is "forcing" them to live by our rules. Nope. Especially in Davis's case. she took an oath. And is breaking it. That's bearing false witness, which is a rather larger sin than what she's protesting.
She just likes the money and the ability to impose her views on others. Well, she doesn't get to do that under the law.
She wants to follow her conscience, but not be inconvienced by the consequences. Well, she's finding out how well that (didn't) work now.