define "American Morality".

Why? No-one else does. But the people should define the morality, not the other way around. If everyone thinks this woman is a fruitloop, she's a fruitloop. Foucault and shit.

I seem to remember freedom of expression, freedom to pursue happiness etc. being pretty high up on the American bit-of-papery thingy. I guess none of the morons that founded the country thought even for a second that one person's pursuit of happiness (e.g. to get married) might conflict with another person's pursuit of happiness (e.g. to fuck over gay people for fun). Either that or they thought about it and decided "meh, fuck it, we'll probably be dead before it causes any serious problems" and broke off early to hit ye olde pube.

Thinking more about this: is claiming rights to religious freedom basically the same as pleading insanity? As in, you're saying "I can't be held responsible for my actions/beliefs because..."?

actually, i hear that phrase a lot. i'm sure it's not merriam-webster approved or anything, but the foreigners like to throw it around a lot. i just was curious on how our morality is so different from everyone elses.

& as for saying england is more liberal than america... that might be true. in certain lights, at least. or at least with petty shit like marriage. but when it comes to boldly going where no man has gone before.. i think we know who trounces in that one.

I've been following this thread but I've only just gathered my thoughts enough on it to want to post. I was really tempted to come in here and argue the shit out of it with Ash (sorry, pal, but your thread title had me going from the off. Everyone else manages a fairly objective thread title at the very least, bar the resident retard zoanthropy).

But as it happens, I find myself on the same side of the argument as him, though maybe for slightly different reasons, or maybe the same reasons but he hasn't described his far enough for me to know. So all I really know is the guy is gay and not chuffed, essentially.

Personally I think whether this woman is homophobic or not is entirely beside the point. Her predicament is basically one small part of a bigger issue: to what extent should religious beliefs be accommodated in the workplace?

Kesh has two excellent points re: the cherry-picking of beliefs from scripture, and also the changing of responsibilities (and perhaps terms) of employment. So I'm going to run with those for a while.

(Oph's making good points too but nothing I wouldn't have expected, so I'll leave those be.)

I think the general feeling in this thread is that the cherry-picking of beliefs from scripture to suit oneself is frowned upon by non-believers, yes? This kinda baffles me, even though I realise the point being made (christianity as possibly an irrelevant justification of outright homophobia). But I don't think religion, and this goes for any religion, has ever really been a rigid thing where everybody has precisely the same beliefs drawn from it. Spirituality is really quite a fluid concept; the vast number of different sects and whatnot basically confirms this. Everyone who subscribes to a religion subscribes to it in a (sometimes very slightly) different way.

So is that a problem? Does that have to be hypocrisy?

I personally think people can believe anything they want, can seek a religion and practise it in such a way that suits them as an individual, can heed some parts of scripture and disregard others if they so choose. I would want this ability if I were a spiritual person (I'm not). So if a given Christian wants to believe that homosexuals are going to burn in the fiery pits of hell, while heterosexuals who marry outwith the church and could be considered to be committing fornication are still safely on their path to heaven, so be it. Beliefs never hurt anybody. Obviously it's what you do with your beliefs that matters.

Clearly that leaves the door wide open for prejudice and intolerance, and that brings me to the point of whether religious beliefs should be accommodated in the workplace. Since few people are going to have exactly the same beliefs resulting from their religion, you can't really accommodate them at large even if those beliefs are well-meaning towards or of no consequence to the rest of the community. There's no one-size-fits-all. So even if an employer wanted to accommodate them, it would have to be on a fairly individual basis.

I don't think those with religious beliefs should be permitted to expect that. You go out into the world with your own set of beliefs and you practise your beliefs as you go about your life. Why would one want to risk going about their life in such a way that jeopardises their beliefs, in the (probably) vain hope that others will understand and cut them some slack? Wouldn't you want a safer bet? I think if your beliefs conflict with a certain profession, or what can reasonably be expected to be within the average worker's responsibilities in a certain profession, you shouldn't be shooting for that profession. In what world would an employer hire you over someone else, if your religious beliefs caused you to be able to carry out less work (or should I say fewer types of work) than the other person? You're only setting yourself up for a harder time in that case. I flat-out cannot even understand that.

Obviously it's different for this woman, since she was around before civil partnerships were. It maybe begs the question of whether she should anticipate, when going into her job, possible ideological progress with regard to the tolerance of homosexuality, but that's just fucking complicating matters too much (should Christian pharmacists back in the day have anticipated that birth control would be developed and become available?! maybe?)

If this woman had been smart, I would have had her back somewhat, not ideologically of course but at least from a practical point of view. Because if she'd been smart, straight away she would have respectfully asked to be officially relieved of all homosexual-related duties (rather than arsing about behind the scenes with shift/job swapping and whatnot before bothering to try to sort it out properly). And if the council refused to grant that, she should then have asked to be moved to a different dept altogether. And if they wouldn't grant that, she should have resigned and filed a claim for constructive dismissal. And she would have won it, and would probably have gotten a cushy job elsewhere in the civil service.

Instead, she dug in her heels, on the basis that she should have the right to choose her responsibilities. What in law gives her that right? No one else has this as an automatic right (bar maybe the disabled) though I realise that's probably a fairly immature "if I don't get it then why should they" feet-stomping kind of argument. However, quick tale: I remember in my earlier days of accountancy, then as a vegetarian, having to prepare the accounts of a small butcher shop, whose records both stunk of dead flesh and were splattered with the blood of dead animals. That's obviously not the same as in this case, but to assist a butcher shop in their affairs seemed almost like a tacit approval of their line of business, much like how this woman finds that she, by "marrying" homosexuals, feels that this constitutes a tacit approval of homosexuality. Whereas apparently she has been found in court to have a right to a choice, you can be damn sure I didn't get the choice, and indeed I didn't expect it. Some you win, some you lose, and I believe that if you can't stand losing then you ought to find something at which you can only win.

Am I making at least some sense?

__________________
Deux hommes font une promenade amicale. L'un des deux porte un parapluie à son bras.
Il se met à pleuvoir. L'homme n'ouvre pas son parapluie et l'autre lui demande pourquoi.
- Parce que ça ne servirait à rien, lui répond son ami. Il est plein de trous.
- Alors, pourquoi l'as-tu pris?
- Parce que je ne pensais pas qu'il pleuvrait.

meh... titles r irrelevant

Well, yeah. Hence how I didn't rip the guy up for arse paper, b/c I agree with him (I think) on some of the principles of this case. His posts haven't impressed me greatly, but I think that's more to do with his expression than his ideas. So I'm trying not to be too bothered.

But I dunno. Calling someone a cow b/c their ideas are different from yours, even if you consider their ideas a heap of shit and unfair and even appalling, just seems a bit juvenile, when in fact this subject has a certain gravity to it, and is actually something that will only become increasingly more important as this country becomes increasingly more multi-cultural.

But then maybe I'm just taking shit too seriously. Given the length of my last post... aye, clearly.

__________________
Deux hommes font une promenade amicale. L'un des deux porte un parapluie à son bras.
Il se met à pleuvoir. L'homme n'ouvre pas son parapluie et l'autre lui demande pourquoi.
- Parce que ça ne servirait à rien, lui répond son ami. Il est plein de trous.
- Alors, pourquoi l'as-tu pris?
- Parce que je ne pensais pas qu'il pleuvrait.

im sure he meant no harm

Well, to be fair, she looks more like a horse

i hold my hands up Black Mambo... i am not good at writing probing posts and this causes problems for me... i was just annoyed at the time and im only good at coming up with song titles

__________________

I look forward to a passionate rendition of "Homophobic Cow Wins Case".



Well, I'm gash at coming up with song titles. And songs in general, tbh. So you've got that over my 51684184684 rambling paragraphs banter.

Sorry to be so harsh on you, man. I can sort of tell, as your friend says, that you do mean well. And despite the temptation to rush in and play devil's advocate, I know that fundamentally I agreed with your stance (whether for the same reasons or not) so that'd be me just being a cock for the sake of it.

I do like a good debate though. My trouble is that most folks would sooner give up the will to live than sit through one of my posts, so I seem to go largely unchallenged, ha.

__________________
Deux hommes font une promenade amicale. L'un des deux porte un parapluie à son bras.
Il se met à pleuvoir. L'homme n'ouvre pas son parapluie et l'autre lui demande pourquoi.
- Parce que ça ne servirait à rien, lui répond son ami. Il est plein de trous.
- Alors, pourquoi l'as-tu pris?
- Parce que je ne pensais pas qu'il pleuvrait.

well i did like your post... i think i should sit and make a funny song named after this thread title to make up for it. Tbh i have no idea how i passed my degree really... i dont pretend to be clever cos at the end of the day i know im not... im just too emotional and quick to jump in with a response to these kinda issues without fully thinking it thru...

__________________

True, but most religions do have some kind of albeit only implied system whereby you have the big rules and then the little ones, and if two conflict, you obey the big one rather than the little one. So killing homos = probably wrong, because killing is wrong, even though homos are also wrong. I don't know that that has a Biblical/whateveral basis, but it seems to be how most rational Christians treat their religion. I don't know about Christianity, but I'm pretty sure Islam has a seldom-quoted "when in Rome" clause that expressly says that you obey the rules of the country you live in, even if you are all butthurt about it.


Yup, and the big point I was trying to make in this thread is a very basic one that I think we're both aiming at here.

I currently work as a temp in a local government office, in an inefficient and ill-managed Conservative-held County Council. This job, like most people's jobs, requires me to occasionally do and say things that I don't agree with, or wouldn't do if I could avoid it. I do these things because the reward for doing them (money) combined with the consequences of not doing them (I'd probably get fired) make it worthwhile. Again, most people do this, and accept that as an employee, they kind of have to.

Everyone who has a job occasionally has to do things that, given the choice, they wouldn't do. Most people, realising that they're getting paid to do such things (why would you pay someone to do something that they'd do if you didn't?), accept this.

So why can't this lady? Given the option, with absolute job security and so on, I would've told many of my callers on my old job in School Transport that they quite obviously sufered from the same Autistic Spectrum Disorders as their kids and were only getting so pissy and agitated because of it, and that they should just accept that and get off the phone please so I can do some work please. I didn't do that, and part of the reason is that, because I am not religious, were I called to explain my actions, all I could offer in defense was that I believed I was right. My beliefs were in my own judgement, not God's, so rather than acting on them, I bit my tongue and put up with the situation.

I see these situations as totally comparable. I am not "anti-" autistic people, I respect their right to exist and so on. I do not, however, feel I should have to argue with them (because I know I could never win even if I was indisputably in the right). However, since my job involves doing so, I did it. If I was a registrar, my job would involve marrying people. I may have reasons not to want to marry two people. Were I marrying them in my free time as part of my social life, I might well decide to refuse. But since it is my job, I would feel obligated not to do so. Again, why does this lady think she's special just because she didn't like this particular aspect of her job?

My belief is that many of these religious rights cases are simply religious people in a non-religious situation - having to do things they don't want to - but using their religion to get out of it. If a person doesn't want to marry two homos because EWWW HOMOS, rather than because God says EWWW HOMOS, why shouldn't they be given the same seal of approval?

Here is "Homophobic Cow Wins Case"
Send big files the easy way. Files too large for email attachments? No problem!

__________________

breaking news everybody. it's since emerged that this devout lady has had a bastard child

out of wedlock

| Christian Registrar Who Refused Gay Marriage Had Child Out Of Wedlock | Anorak News

and she's not a born-again. sinning cunt

I am hot for your Teletext text.

my pic u e is cr9p so tel text l oks l5ke th s f£r me

It saddens me to think that there will be generations in the future that will never have known the joy of Teletext.