How about we call you when she is taking public funds to perform a job that she refuses to do and instead of resigning her position demands that she be able to not do her job and still be paid for it.
You're right, Christians are so persecuted. I mean how awful is it for the public to require her to do the job they pay her to do? So unfair.
Here's the problem: While this nut-case was ordering her staff to NOT issue any marriage licenses, she never offered any "compromise" or devised any alternative process for dealing with same-sex couples. She just decided to assert her "religious freedom" and essentially say "Fuck the law!" Of course, now that the she's feeling the pain caused by her own decisions, suddenly she wants a compromise.If a compromise can be reached, that preserves the rights of all parties, why are you all against it?
She could then do the job she is being paid to do and everyone could feel better about protecting the rights of all individuals.
To be against this type of compromise exposes your true bigotry.
If a compromise can be reached, that preserves the rights of all parties, why are you all against it?
She could then do the job she is being paid to do and everyone could feel better about protecting the rights of all individuals.
To be against this type of compromise exposes your true bigotry.
Her job is to give out marriage licenses that comply with the law, not to decide who gets one.Maybe because some of us still respect the rights of ALL individuals.
I know, it's crazy cool to be bigoted against Christians right now so just join the crowd, call them nut jobs, put them in jail, whatever it takes to eradicate them or drive them into obscurity. Maybe that works for you but I'll take a compromise that preserves the rights of all parties any day.
I was led to believe that a compromise had been offered but that she had refused it. I've since learned that the compromise story was not true. The, so called, compromise still involved her signing her agreement to every license, which is the act her religious faith doesn't allow her to do.
Her lawyer says that she is willing to allow her office to hand out licenses, if she is not required to sign them. This seems like a good compromise, especially since that is what they are doing while she's in jail.
I pray for God to protect and strengthen her. You can now feel free to hate me as well.
.
Here's the problem: While this nut-case was ordering her staff to NOT issue any marriage licenses, she never offered any "compromise" or devised any alternative process for dealing with same-sex couples. She just decided to assert her "religious freedom" and essentially say "Fuck the law!" Of course, now that the she's feeling the pain caused by her own decisions, suddenly she wants a compromise.
If she had instead allowed same-sex marriage licenses to be issued from the very beginning, but had simultaneously sought an alternative approach for approving same-sex licenses where she wasn't personally involved (maybe having her back-up approve those licenses while this arrangement was being worked out), I think we all would respected this woman and that process.
If a compromise can be reached, that preserves the rights of all parties, why are you all against it?
She could then do the job she is being paid to do and everyone could feel better about protecting the rights of all individuals.
To be against this type of compromise exposes your true bigotry.
The relevant question is: Was the compromise offered before she stopped issuing marriage licenses and then understood the coming repercussions of her action?You sure about that? If I can prove that the compromise was offered before going to jail, would it change your opinion? I think not.
It's ok guys, we all have natural tendencies to be bigoted. We're all intolerant of certain groups. I'm intolerant of people who shoot vertical video. Don't keep trying to hide it. Your refusal of compromise exposes you.
You sure about that? If I can prove that the compromise was offered before going to jail, would it change your opinion? I think not.
It's ok guys, we all have natural tendencies to be bigoted. We're all intolerant of certain groups. I'm intolerant of people who shoot vertical video. Don't keep trying to hide it. Your refusal of compromise exposes you.
Here's the problem: While this nut-case was ordering her staff to NOT issue any marriage licenses, she never offered any "compromise" or devised any alternative process for dealing with same-sex couples. She just decided to assert her "religious freedom" and essentially say "Fuck the law!" Of course, now that the she's feeling the pain caused by her own decisions, suddenly she wants a compromise.
If she had instead allowed same-sex marriage licenses to be issued from the very beginning, but had simultaneously sought an alternative approach for approving same-sex licenses where she wasn't personally involved (maybe having her back-up approve those licenses while this arrangement was being worked out), I think we all would respected this woman and that process.
Ah, yes.You sure about that? If I can prove that the compromise was offered before going to jail, would it change your opinion? I think not.
It's ok guys, we all have natural tendencies to be bigoted. We're all intolerant of certain groups. I'm intolerant of people who shoot vertical video. Don't keep trying to hide it. Your refusal of compromise exposes you.
She offered a compromise - she didn't want her name on the forms and others could sign instead of her. Her name was printed on the forms and she wanted it removed before they were issued.
So what about this:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html
If we follow the same logic - screw her religion and jail her for not serving alcohol. But nobody takes up that narrative because it's a muslim.
Because not serving someone alcohol while filling a public service job in the private sector is the same as a sworn government official refusing to do the job she is mandated to do by the law. Is that the basis of your argument?
Ah, yes.
The classic: you're an intolerant bigot for not tolerating bigotry.
You're continued posting is that statement, over and over and over again.
No one is preventing the scumbag you're defending from practicing Christianity as she sees fit. Instead, she's forcing everyone who wants a marriage license to practice her version of Christianity.
Which, of course makes us all the intolerant bigot for not tolerating her intolerant bigotry.
Keep on keepin' on with that argument, hoss.
She had the easiest way possible - resign - since she was no longer interested in performing the duties of her office.This is not true and the fact that you keep repeating it says more about you than her.
She isn't interested in stopping all same-sex marriages in her county. She is only asking that she not be forced to participate in them in a way that violates her beliefs. She is asking and has been asking that her name not be on the license.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
When she was sworn in, the laws in this area lined up with her beliefs. They were changed.
This is not true and the fact that you keep repeating it says more about you than her.
She isn't interested in stopping all same-sex marriages in her county. She is only asking that she not be forced to participate in them in a way that violates her beliefs. She is asking and has been asking that her name not be on the license.
Too fucking bad. If she can no longer fulfill the legal duties of her office, the duties that she swore an oath before her god to fulfill, she can resign.
She didn't swear to do those duties though. The job description was changed and it's not her fault.
You would be okay with having to just quit your job if you were being told to do something that, to you, was immoral even though it was technically legal?
The job description did not change. She signed off on marriage licenses before and that's what she's supposed to be doing now. Her job is to represent the 'State' not her personal belief system.
But keep digging that hole. Eventually you might hit oil (or China).
She offered a compromise - she didn't want her name on the forms and others could sign instead of her. Her name was printed on the forms and she wanted it removed before they were issued.
So what about this:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html
If we follow the same logic - screw her religion and jail her for not serving alcohol. But nobody takes up that narrative because it's a muslim.
Not a public employee.
Do you know how this stuff works?
Previously, the job did not involve issuing marriage licenses to gay people....not it does....that's called a change.
Stop being so disingenuous. That is not a change in her job description. She is supposed to hand out those licenses to everyone who is legally entitled to get one. She doesn't get to pick and choose based on her personal belief system.
She holds the key to her cell, she can either do her job or resign.
Previously, the job did not involve issuing marriage licenses to gay people....not it does....that's called a change.
Stop being so disingenuous. That is not a change in her job description. She is supposed to hand out those licenses to everyone who is legally entitled to get one. She doesn't get to pick and choose based on her personal belief system.
She holds the key to her cell, she can either do her job or resign.
You have to be a parody troll.
Her job description is giving eligible people a marriage certificate.
The first amendment doesn't give her permission to stop doing her job.