100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Good For Her. Just Say No | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
His will is the scriptures. They can not be broken. You can't be serious. The scriptures have always been so totally broken that no two clergy could ever agree on what they even mean throughout all of history. This is the kind of utterly silly rhetoric that people seem to fall for. They hear these kinds of claims, and keep repeating them, but they fail to see that there isn't any truth to them at all, and never was. WHICH scriptures cannot be broken?  The one's the Jews believe in? The one's the Muslims believe in? The one's the Catholics believe in? Or one of the various interpretations that the myriad of protesting Protestants have decided upon? Seems to me that these scriptures are about as broken as anything can possibly be. And where does this claim even come from?  Oh, wait, let me guess,... From the scriptures themselves?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His will is the scriptures. They can not be broken. You can't be serious. The scriptures have always been so totally broken that no two clergy could ever agree on what they even mean throughout all of history. This is the kind of utterly silly rhetoric that people seem to fall for. They hear these kinds of claims, and keep repeating them, but they fail to see that there isn't any truth to them at all, and never was. WHICH scriptures cannot be broken? The one's the Jews believe in? The one's the Muslims believe in? The one's the Catholics believe in? Or one of the various interpretations that the myriad of protesting Protestants have decided upon? Seems to me that these scriptures are about as broken as anything can possibly be. And where does this claim even come from? Oh, wait, let me guess,... From the scriptures themselves? Shalom Abra I know how you feel and you me.. We have been through this before. The Scriptures can not and will never be BROKEN. No matter how much the fairy tale people hang around to claim something thats nothing is really Nothing.. Cunfusing thoughts? Must be something to nothing or is nothing something in Fairy ville Land.. Its fine because ultimately the device, if decision will make its rounds and everyone will know... struggling... I agree about the Scriptures have been messed with. That does not mean thier not still true. Yahweh in his mercy allowed what we know is His Will for Evil Men in High Places to Bring us even to this point. Prophecy tells us that we will be mocked with out reason. Spat upon as he was.. So we do not threat what you and whoever has to say for its a teaching tool to us. His Name is Holy for a Reason.. Thats why we do not see it trounced on every day by the false diety of Zues.. very Possible u may be correct..Leans that away. Yahweh Has Power we see it everywhere. When you take a Deep Breath You utter his Name and You do Not even Know it.. Thats how Mercifull he is because he knows whats satans up 2. The People Who Hold His Name are His People and thiers very few. No one usually wants the job. Be ready to be Spat on Brother Where Art Thou? You know this by the time you get to them.. Its a Journey but yoiu Must Obey the Sin Unto U...and not do it.. U are ready then for the fiery darts because as any good tradesman is known is by the quality of His work. Not 1 but many as They Have Love For One Another. The Sower who landed on Good Grown is a system of roots that when the one who Heard The Word and said Yea Thats for me and then when trial came said well hold on a minute.. We are to have an answer for that Man who wants to Really Know. You know Wise as a Sepent Gentle as a Dove. New Believers are Old Believers who finally found thier way. They worked for it..They Searched for it.. The word was in them. Then when they hear it and follow it a New beginning happens and they Staret learning all over again.. Everything is so fresh. This time they are no Babes to us.. They were the Best Like Paul when he got struck down. Galations says he went into Arabia..Desert.. To Be Taught. Paul of all People was segragated and Taught.. Maybe by Angels. Then when he comes back on the scene even though he had not been with the 12 while He was alive. He now speaks words of wisdom nobody could deny.. They did but he was taken. Protected by Rome from Death.. To Minister to Royaty in Rome. A fairy Tale.. Rome wanted this religion just thier own way but they wanted it is easy to see every day.. The Scriptures Stand as A Gift to us. The world sees the scripture that says when will the world end.. Ah Ha.. When will it? We can know..The scriptures have to go to all parts of the world 1st. Everyone says that believes in the book. But this Evangel the world Hates but yet this word has to be heard by everyone because thats the LAW. Plain and simple judgement on yourselves. Its your choice... You have not seen anything yet. But the Holy Spirit is Alive and Well.. He is no parlor magician who does what the world Becks and calls.. Who's the world? He will chose when he shows his son.. When signs and wonders will abound.. from good and bad... The trick is to understand it. without the SchoolMaster or Instruction Book on Life and Faith and Trust which is part of Love. Its easy to see the Scriptures are Alive and Well as They always have been.. Just Parlor tricksters have been around for a long time.. Making a good profit from a forgery... Blessings....Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If U have been on a Job for years and then the laws change and u tell your employer before the fact u can not do a new legislative duty because of your convictions.. Should you be fired for refusing? I do not believe so.. What do you think?....Blessings...Miles http://www.nrtoday.com/article/20101110/NEWS/101119963/1063/NEWS&parentprofile=1055 ENLARGE A federal jury is scheduled to decide in the spring whether a Douglas County clerk was wrongly fired after she objected on religious grounds to registering same-sex couples as domestic partners. Kathy Slater, who worked for the county for more than a decade before she was dismissed in February 2008, is seeking unspecified damages and attorney fees. A judge recently ruled that the lawsuit, which was filed last year in U.S. District Court in Eugene, can go to trial, rejecting a county motion to dismiss the suit as unfounded. Slater, 49, contends the county could have accommodated her “sincerely held religious belief” by having the other five clerks in the office register same-sex couples, which takes about 10 minutes per couple. County Clerk Barbara Nielsen said granting Slater's request would have posed an undue hardship on her office. It would have meant pulling clerks away from other duties and could have caused couples to wait. As a result, Nielsen said she was not legally obligated to accommodate Slater. Nielsen declined to comment Tuesday. Efforts to reach attorneys representing Slater and the county were not successful. The 2007 Oregon Legislature passed legislation recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships. The law allows gay couples to file a declaration that gives them the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. Since the law took effect in February 2008, 42 domestic partnerships have been registered in Douglas County. The bulk of those took place in 2008, with eight more registrations in 2009 and five so far this year. Slater wrote Nielsen a letter two months before the law went into effect expressing her concerns. Nielsen responded by saying she needed to have each of her clerks carry out the full range of duties. “I tried to put my thoughts and feelings aside to go ahead and do it, but I just can't,” Slater said in a court deposition. She said she objected to homosexual activity because it's an “abomination.” In her deposition, Slater said registering same-sex couples would have made her feel she was condoning homosexuality. “I knew in my heart I couldn't do it,” she said in the deposition. Slater, who attended Boise Bible College in Boise, Idaho, for two years in the 1980s, said she was guided by the Bible, which she described as the “truth.” In her own deposition, Nielsen said she didn't want Slater to leave, but that she didn't have any choice. Slater refused to resign, so Nielsen to relieved her of her position. “So I told her I was going to have to let her go. And she cried and I cried and she asked if I would do a letter of recommendation. And I told her, of course,” Nielsen said in the deposition. The lawsuit, filed by Eugene attorney Brian Pocock, claims the county did not try to find Slater a job in another department. Instead, she was told to apply and interview for other jobs. She applied for three clerical positions but was not hired for any of them. Pocock said the county should have tried to find Slater another position. In a September ruling sending the case to trial March 1, U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin said the county's efforts to find Slater another county job were inadequate. The county placed the onus on Slater to find a new job, rather than accommodating her religious beliefs by finding her another position, Coffin wrote. Coffin also noted that Nielsen did not ask the other clerks whether they were willing to take up the slack. He said the clerk also did not contact other counties to see if the issue had come up and how they had responded. After Slater was fired, the county did not hire a replacement. Therefore, Coffin wrote, the county would not have suffered an undue hardship. He also noted that two of Slater's colleagues processed 26 of 37 registrations recorded through 2009. Three other clerks processed the rest. “Because I cannot tell from the record before me whether an accommodation to Ms. Slater would have caused an undue hardship to the county, the county's motion for summary judgment is denied and the county will be required to present their evidence on that issue to a jury,” Coffin wrote. This will be fought out in courts for the next 10 years.A company has the right to fire you for any reason they want to and can get away with it.However religious people of this country do have the freedom of religion and that is a RIGHT that can not be trampled over by the Government or anyone else. I can see both sides of this issue.The county has a job to do and this person is not doing it.Should she be fired for refusing to do her job?Maybe.It would seem to me if a person is offended because it is against their religion the company could either find her a different job or have her not process the homosexual registrations. There is no doubt she was fired for her religious beliefs.Can a company fire her anyways?Yes but they also violated her religious rights.She was wrongly fired for her belief in Christianity and that will have a price to pay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If U have been on a Job for years and then the laws change and u tell your employer before the fact u can not do a new legislative duty because of your convictions.. Should you be fired for refusing? I do not believe so.. What do you think?....Blessings...Miles http://www.nrtoday.com/article/20101110/NEWS/101119963/1063/NEWS&parentprofile=1055 ENLARGE A federal jury is scheduled to decide in the spring whether a Douglas County clerk was wrongly fired after she objected on religious grounds to registering same-sex couples as domestic partners. Kathy Slater, who worked for the county for more than a decade before she was dismissed in February 2008, is seeking unspecified damages and attorney fees. A judge recently ruled that the lawsuit, which was filed last year in U.S. District Court in Eugene, can go to trial, rejecting a county motion to dismiss the suit as unfounded. Slater, 49, contends the county could have accommodated her “sincerely held religious belief” by having the other five clerks in the office register same-sex couples, which takes about 10 minutes per couple. County Clerk Barbara Nielsen said granting Slater's request would have posed an undue hardship on her office. It would have meant pulling clerks away from other duties and could have caused couples to wait. As a result, Nielsen said she was not legally obligated to accommodate Slater. Nielsen declined to comment Tuesday. Efforts to reach attorneys representing Slater and the county were not successful. The 2007 Oregon Legislature passed legislation recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships. The law allows gay couples to file a declaration that gives them the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. Since the law took effect in February 2008, 42 domestic partnerships have been registered in Douglas County. The bulk of those took place in 2008, with eight more registrations in 2009 and five so far this year. Slater wrote Nielsen a letter two months before the law went into effect expressing her concerns. Nielsen responded by saying she needed to have each of her clerks carry out the full range of duties. “I tried to put my thoughts and feelings aside to go ahead and do it, but I just can't,” Slater said in a court deposition. She said she objected to homosexual activity because it's an “abomination.” In her deposition, Slater said registering same-sex couples would have made her feel she was condoning homosexuality. “I knew in my heart I couldn't do it,” she said in the deposition. Slater, who attended Boise Bible College in Boise, Idaho, for two years in the 1980s, said she was guided by the Bible, which she described as the “truth.” In her own deposition, Nielsen said she didn't want Slater to leave, but that she didn't have any choice. Slater refused to resign, so Nielsen to relieved her of her position. “So I told her I was going to have to let her go. And she cried and I cried and she asked if I would do a letter of recommendation. And I told her, of course,” Nielsen said in the deposition. The lawsuit, filed by Eugene attorney Brian Pocock, claims the county did not try to find Slater a job in another department. Instead, she was told to apply and interview for other jobs. She applied for three clerical positions but was not hired for any of them. Pocock said the county should have tried to find Slater another position. In a September ruling sending the case to trial March 1, U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin said the county's efforts to find Slater another county job were inadequate. The county placed the onus on Slater to find a new job, rather than accommodating her religious beliefs by finding her another position, Coffin wrote. Coffin also noted that Nielsen did not ask the other clerks whether they were willing to take up the slack. He said the clerk also did not contact other counties to see if the issue had come up and how they had responded. After Slater was fired, the county did not hire a replacement. Therefore, Coffin wrote, the county would not have suffered an undue hardship. He also noted that two of Slater's colleagues processed 26 of 37 registrations recorded through 2009. Three other clerks processed the rest. “Because I cannot tell from the record before me whether an accommodation to Ms. Slater would have caused an undue hardship to the county, the county's motion for summary judgment is denied and the county will be required to present their evidence on that issue to a jury,” Coffin wrote. This will be fought out in courts for the next 10 years.A company has the right to fire you for any reason they want to and can get away with it.However religious people of this country do have the freedom of religion and that is a RIGHT that can not be trampled over by the Government or anyone else. I can see both sides of this issue.The county has a job to do and this person is not doing it.Should she be fired for refusing to do her job?Maybe.It would seem to me if a person is offended because it is against their religion the company could either find her a different job or have her not process the homosexual registrations. There is no doubt she was fired for her religious beliefs.Can a company fire her anyways?Yes but they also violated her religious rights.She was wrongly fired for her belief in Christianity and that will have a price to pay. It would of been very easy for them to say and I believe good management to have said.. Ok this is new territory for us lets both give this 6 months to a year and see what happens then a trial of the New Law and thier part in it would of been clearly seen. Of all the applicants only seven in 2 years would of been done by her or 2 others i believe. What a hardship for them. No it was example time.. A publicity stunt.. To get all of us to give up our rights.. Good Management was not even thought about...Blessings...Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's get to the heart of this matter with same facts. The limitations of jobs are most often connected to the limitations of skills, knowledge, and ability. Other than that, the economy, or where we live, my also limit our choice of jobs – but no one forces a person to take or keep any position. The job did not change when the law of that state made same-sex marriage legal. It was the same job, she wasn’t even required to learn anything new. Her reasons for deciding she no longer wanted to do that job were her own. There was really no reason for her to tell her boss why, she simply had to give notice and leave. Moreover, individual religious beliefs are legally protected under privacy laws so as not to place further limitation (via discrimination) on a person’s choice of jobs. That leaves it up to the individual to determine if a ‘deeply held’ religious belief would interfere with a particular job. It is not up to employers to accommodate religious beliefs. In fact, most religious people who have the kind of ‘deeply held’ religious belief that Kathy Slater does, are also ‘deeply’ conservative. So her position in this matter, and those conservatives who would agree with her, seems rather hypocritical, considering that the same conservatives also believe in UNREGULATED CAPITALISM. There is also another matter to consider – religious beliefs are infinite. It would cripple every business if they had to accommodate every ‘deeply held’ religious belief. That’s just another point that upholds the validity and rationality of creating a legal system that is not held to any religious standard. It is why Americans are supposed to believe that our form of government is so valuable. It is why so many people are against a theocratic state rule. It is why people are asked to consider law in terms of how those policies ‘ethically’ relate to the population as a whole and not to the ‘special interest’ of any person or group. Kathy Slater’s rights were not infringed upon. She had a choice to either continue doing the same job she had been doing or putting her beliefs before her job. That was HER concern, NOT a concern of her employer. In my lifetime I have never seen a group of people that have been more disrespectful,more intolerant,more "my way or the highway",then the homosexuals.They don't care about anyone but me,myself and I.They piss on everyone.Society and the Christians have bent over backwards trying to get along with the homosexuals and all they keep doing is giving us the middle finger. Why is it when a homosexual is offended the entire world must be turned upside down and backwards to please that one person?Homosexuals want to use either bathrooms-we have to do it,homosexuals want gay pride parades payed for with tax dollars-we have to do it,homosexuals want laws demanding people get thrown in prison for "hate crimes" when people speak out against them-we have to do it.Homosexuals are getting treated like the elite by our Government who bends over backwards to give them anything they demand. I'm getting tired of reading how the homosexuals steam roll over everyone who gets in their way because they dare to say "I don't approve".And I'm tired of our Government who is being led by a dog collar by the homosexuals firing,fining,and telling Christians to shut their mouths and move out of the country. I can only dream that one day I will read a single news story telling me how a homosexual respected the nature of a Christian man or womans beliefs and simply says"I know this person doesn't approve of my lifestyle and I understand why they may not want to associate with me.I do not believe it would be right to force them to accept my way of life against their religious beliefs". But I know tolerance and disapproval is a unknown word in the homosexual community. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If U have been on a Job for years and then the laws change and u tell your employer before the fact u can not do a new legislative duty because of your convictions.. Should you be fired for refusing? I do not believe so.. What do you think?....Blessings...Miles http://www.nrtoday.com/article/20101110/NEWS/101119963/1063/NEWS&parentprofile=1055 ENLARGE A federal jury is scheduled to decide in the spring whether a Douglas County clerk was wrongly fired after she objected on religious grounds to registering same-sex couples as domestic partners. Kathy Slater, who worked for the county for more than a decade before she was dismissed in February 2008, is seeking unspecified damages and attorney fees. A judge recently ruled that the lawsuit, which was filed last year in U.S. District Court in Eugene, can go to trial, rejecting a county motion to dismiss the suit as unfounded. Slater, 49, contends the county could have accommodated her “sincerely held religious belief” by having the other five clerks in the office register same-sex couples, which takes about 10 minutes per couple. County Clerk Barbara Nielsen said granting Slater's request would have posed an undue hardship on her office. It would have meant pulling clerks away from other duties and could have caused couples to wait. As a result, Nielsen said she was not legally obligated to accommodate Slater. Nielsen declined to comment Tuesday. Efforts to reach attorneys representing Slater and the county were not successful. The 2007 Oregon Legislature passed legislation recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships. The law allows gay couples to file a declaration that gives them the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. Since the law took effect in February 2008, 42 domestic partnerships have been registered in Douglas County. The bulk of those took place in 2008, with eight more registrations in 2009 and five so far this year. Slater wrote Nielsen a letter two months before the law went into effect expressing her concerns. Nielsen responded by saying she needed to have each of her clerks carry out the full range of duties. “I tried to put my thoughts and feelings aside to go ahead and do it, but I just can't,” Slater said in a court deposition. She said she objected to homosexual activity because it's an “abomination.” In her deposition, Slater said registering same-sex couples would have made her feel she was condoning homosexuality. “I knew in my heart I couldn't do it,” she said in the deposition. Slater, who attended Boise Bible College in Boise, Idaho, for two years in the 1980s, said she was guided by the Bible, which she described as the “truth.” In her own deposition, Nielsen said she didn't want Slater to leave, but that she didn't have any choice. Slater refused to resign, so Nielsen to relieved her of her position. “So I told her I was going to have to let her go. And she cried and I cried and she asked if I would do a letter of recommendation. And I told her, of course,” Nielsen said in the deposition. The lawsuit, filed by Eugene attorney Brian Pocock, claims the county did not try to find Slater a job in another department. Instead, she was told to apply and interview for other jobs. She applied for three clerical positions but was not hired for any of them. Pocock said the county should have tried to find Slater another position. In a September ruling sending the case to trial March 1, U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin said the county's efforts to find Slater another county job were inadequate. The county placed the onus on Slater to find a new job, rather than accommodating her religious beliefs by finding her another position, Coffin wrote. Coffin also noted that Nielsen did not ask the other clerks whether they were willing to take up the slack. He said the clerk also did not contact other counties to see if the issue had come up and how they had responded. After Slater was fired, the county did not hire a replacement. Therefore, Coffin wrote, the county would not have suffered an undue hardship. He also noted that two of Slater's colleagues processed 26 of 37 registrations recorded through 2009. Three other clerks processed the rest. “Because I cannot tell from the record before me whether an accommodation to Ms. Slater would have caused an undue hardship to the county, the county's motion for summary judgment is denied and the county will be required to present their evidence on that issue to a jury,” Coffin wrote. This will be fought out in courts for the next 10 years.A company has the right to fire you for any reason they want to and can get away with it.However religious people of this country do have the freedom of religion and that is a RIGHT that can not be trampled over by the Government or anyone else. I can see both sides of this issue.The county has a job to do and this person is not doing it.Should she be fired for refusing to do her job?Maybe.It would seem to me if a person is offended because it is against their religion the company could either find her a different job or have her not process the homosexual registrations. There is no doubt she was fired for her religious beliefs.Can a company fire her anyways?Yes but they also violated her religious rights.She was wrongly fired for her belief in Christianity and that will have a price to pay. It would of been very easy for them to say and I believe good management to have said.. Ok this is new territory for us lets both give this 6 months to a year and see what happens then a trial of the New Law and thier part in it would of been clearly seen. Of all the applicants only seven in 2 years would of been done by her or 2 others i believe. What a hardship for them. No it was example time.. A publicity stunt.. To get all of us to give up our rights.. Good Management was not even thought about...Blessings...Miles How would this be playing out if you had a Muslim woman in a burqa giving marriage licenses to the Jews?You think you might have a conflict and problems and her having objections?What if it was the other way around.How about a Jewish immigrant from Jerusalem giving a license to a Palestine immigrant? I think it's reasonable for her to say she feels uncomfortable associating with Jews because of her religious beliefs and common sense would tell you that firing her is going to land you in a heap of trouble.A more reasonable approach would be to move her to another area where she doesn't have to see people face to face. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why should anyone be hired and then they be forced to do something different than they have been doing for years if they have a personal reason for not doing it? Mumbo jumbo huh? When we allow diety of any kind to rule us by fear then fear wins. So would you still feel this way if an automated computer came in to take the place of a person? If the person isn't willing to learn the new job, because it offends their beliefs (and there are people who believe that with regards to computers over people), then they are fired or resign. If they aren't willing to change with the times, then there are others who will. This is a religious issue. If it offends a person to do the work, and they choose not to, then its time for a change. I have problems with pharmacists who use that as an excuse for not handing out birth control, or abortifactants. If it offends then, to bad, it's time they find a new line of work. It offends me that men get viagra when they're in their 79's, but I wouldn't assume to not give it to them if I was in that line of work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a guess, but I'd bet that this Christian woman wouldn't be refusing to handle paperwork recording heterosexual divorces on religious grounds.
I'm also sure that when the miscegenation laws were repealed, there was a similar acts of 'conscientious objection' to filing the paperwork for biracial couples, too. Google it up and see how what people were saying back then and compare it with present day 'political statements' like the one she is making by doing this. There were religious people back then who used scripture to justify their positions, too. I thought public servants swore an oath to uphold the laws of the land, not just the ones with which they agree. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if they are doing things at her job that goes against her religion then why would she still want to work there ... by working there she still a part of what is taking place there
if the place started doing abortions would she still wish to work there even through she is not the one performing the abortions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thier are all kinds of scenerios we can come up with.
The facts are she had a job description when she took the job and it was illegal then what she objected too. The point is it should of been handled differently by management. This very well may of been a Political move on her Bosses part. I have worked for a long time and when a employee has objections that are foir real not just a made up one. Then management from what i have seen will work with you. A new policy demands new training and questions and answers. I saw plenty of older workers just refuse to learn computers and management did not make them.. They gave training to many.. Now new employees same with her job.. Know what is required when hired.. Sure things change but you work with someone and its obvious her boss would not. She wanted to take another job but they would not hire her.. Why not? She tried. Everything was done the way it was for a reason. And u can clearly see how many applicants was headed her way in the 2 years from the time the law took place. Come on 7 at ten minutes each. I am sure that you all did not complain or anything when the PEOPLES VOTE was against homosexual marraige that this community raised hell. Well they should of went to jail instead for protesting.. Right? They gave up thier rights in the vote.. Didn't they? Anyone can see they did not try to work with her they were trying to make a statement and probally hope for votes and we are just to silly to see it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
btw
who came up with marriage? second why get married third why be religious forth hey she has/had a job fifth still wondering why people feel they have to get married |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm not into the seculars thing but really why fight for rights to get married when theres a 50% plus chance of it failing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point is it should of been handled differently by management. why management and not the church ...since she claim that it's because of religion wouldn't she fair better by going to the church to see if it is ok to do that particular job .... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm not into the seculars thing but really why fight for rights to get married when theres a 50% plus chance of it failing I agree that state institution is nothing but trouble |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my lifetime I have never seen a group of people that have been more disrespectful,more intolerant,more "my way or the highway",then the homosexuals.They don't care about anyone but me,myself and I.They piss on everyone.Society and the Christians have bent over backwards trying to get along with the homosexuals and all they keep doing is giving us the middle finger. Why is it when a homosexual is offended the entire world must be turned upside down and backwards to please that one person?Homosexuals want to use either bathrooms-we have to do it,homosexuals want gay pride parades payed for with tax dollars-we have to do it,homosexuals want laws demanding people get thrown in prison for "hate crimes" when people speak out against them-we have to do it.Homosexuals are getting treated like the elite by our Government who bends over backwards to give them anything they demand. I'm getting tired of reading how the homosexuals steam roll over everyone who gets in their way because they dare to say "I don't approve".And I'm tired of our Government who is being led by a dog collar by the homosexuals firing,fining,and telling Christians to shut their mouths and move out of the country. I can only dream that one day I will read a single news story telling me how a homosexual respected the nature of a Christian man or womans beliefs and simply says"I know this person doesn't approve of my lifestyle and I understand why they may not want to associate with me.I do not believe it would be right to force them to accept my way of life against their religious beliefs". But I know tolerance and disapproval is a unknown word in the homosexual community. I was going to ask – “Do you consider your response in someway relevant to my post?” But then I realized that to understand what I had posted requires a bit of critical analysis in a rational thought process. Both hate and a rigid adherence to a belief system can inhibit critical analysis and rational thought processes. Another factor that might inhibit the understanding of broad concepts and the ability to formulate a rational reply is the mental capacity of an individual. So instead of my original question I would ask – which is it that inhibits you from reviewing my post and formulating a well thought out and rational reply to it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Fri 11/12/10 11:15 PM
|
|
His will is many things so to say his will was not what she did because she did it is not saying which will happen or do we not see how anythi ng can be twisted. Even your knowledge of scripture goes deep so what u was in was very deer to you. His will is the scriptures. They can not be broken. I’m sorry but I’m having difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make with the above. This was her job. This was her duty. What chaanged? Did she? No.... so what makes you think just because you believe something she see's as sacred is a fairy tale book. Gives you the right to step all over her. Oh for goodness sakes – no one is stepping all over her. Her job did not change she was to register couples for a marriage license. The only change was her attitude toward the job. Do you really expect every employer to accommodate every employee whose attitude toward their job or some aspect of it becomes negative? Look, if the OP was story with a happy ending, Ms. Slater would have gone to those in charge NOT WITH GREIVENCE but with a dilemma. She might have said, I really love my job, I’ve been a good employee with honorable annual reviews, I have good relationships with employees, but I’m here is my dilemma….. followed by - would it be possible to transfer to another department or position or perhaps vary the assignment of duties??? The best outcome might have been – yes we’ve made arrangements for a lateral move. Yippie – a happy ending. Do I care? YES, I do care. These are not good times in which to be unemployed and her paycheck and her self-esteem are tied to that job. From the business perspective, no employer wants to loose the investment in, or the knowledge of, a good long-term employee. We don’t really know all the specifics of her case, we only have the OP to base our comments on. I know that ‘especially’ within any government or civil service jobs there is a very strong ethics to accommodate the diversity of individuals which includes respecting their religious beliefs. I applied that knowledge to the situation as it was presented to us in the OP. If the county was unable to find a suitable and acceptable option, they could not continue to employ Ms. Slater if she refused to do the job. That is not discrimination or disrespect, that’s business. We did not in this coutry our parents and Grand parents in the workplace as the New Age of Computers came on all of a Sudden Say You have to do Computers or no job? Did we do that? Yes we did, but then the government stepped in and offered grants for retraining. Are you suggesting that because Ms. Slater’s beliefs prevented her from performing one aspect of her job that she needs a government grant to be retrained? Then how many older people was thier grandfathered into the same position as thier job got more technical? Has her job not got out of hand for her? Where's her compassion? Compassion - did Ms Slater’s capabilities diminish, did her skills and knowledge become so antiquated as to prohibit her making a living in some other capacity, was her job and all like it outsourced because the company moved to another country? What is it that Ms Slater suffered that we should have compassion for her situation? How much courage had to come from her to stand up for her beliefs even thopugh she KNEW they were not going to like it? A lot. The Law of The Land? It NEVER goes against his Law and be ok. If you believe it is sin and you go on ahead and do it anyway. Then it is SIN TO YOU>> Not anyone else is this sin to. It a sin unto yourself because you knew it was wrong for you. So what Law did she break? She broke no man’s law – in fact she is the one who brought suit against her employers for a violation of another kind of law to which only she felt a responsibility to – what I question is her interpretation of the Law she holds so deeply: 1 Peter 2:13-17 13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. It had to do with her standing up for what she truely believe she had to do.. No Ifs, and Buts about it. Could she not have done her job and continued her efforts to change the law of the land ‘legally’ without offending God’s law (as written above) at the same time that she was following her beliefs in trying to assure her moral commitment could be reflected in the law of the land???? She is know different than the Auto Worker who stands up for his beliefs. None. Why should a clerk for the county be expected to be a Politian.. She is expected to put the law and the constitution FIRST that is what Americans are expected to do. Just as there are pathways to become a legal alien, there are pathways for changing laws to which all citizens have access. And according to the verses quoted above that is also God’s will. Evil Men in High Places Look at what they want and see. We Elect them then we take our anger out on one of us..ourselves we. they did not even replace her.. Why? They knew they did wrong. They did not want to hire someone then she get her job back.. Whats that tell yua on the state of Minds? That’s an awful lot of conjecture and a lot mind reading and little understanding of business. So what she says what she says. let her be.. Let her have that right. Take it away and u will take away in the future your rights also. What did she harm? Really?/ She did no harm – I never said she did. I was simply making points about employment based on the OP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
working for a governmental system, that seeks to represent ALL THE PEOPLE, not just SOME OF THE PEOPLE, would not be a wise choice for someone whom but wishes REPRESENTATION FOR "SOME OF THE PEOPLE"... but, these really have no true principles, EXCEPT THE SELF GROUP BE SUPREME, and should decide HOW ALL OTHER'S LIVE THEIR PERSONAL LIFE... if such is really thought of as "evil", than why do these take and recieve from what they deem as "evil"... such would be the same as working for and TAKING MONEY FROM A DRUG DEALER, for one that believes drug dealers are evil, but yet bitcching when said drug dealer does not conform with self demands... lol... if one work to recieve pay, than it dig the size hole empolyer say dig. if one does not like digging hole the size employer say, then one indeed should find new employer, whom believe as self believe. lol... yea, some real love of "god", these demanders of how all other's should live exude. scum of scum be that which sit atop it's self appointed holy soap box, and sue those whom try to do a good job in representing ALL THE PEOPLE AS EQUAL... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought this case might be worth a follow up:
Monday, October 11, 2010 Court Says Undue Hardship In Accommodating Refusal To Handle Domestic Partnerships Must Go To Jury In Slater v. Douglas County, (D OR, Sept. 24, 2010), an Oregon federal district court refused to grant either plaintiff's or defendant's motions for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case, sending to a jury trial the question of whether accommodating a county employee's religious beliefs would have posed an undue hardship under state or federal employment discrimination laws. The suit was brought by a former employee of the Douglas County, Oregon County Clerk's Office. Plaintiff Kathy Slater was fired from her position after she objected to being involved in registering domestic partnerships under Oregon's Domestic Partnership Law. Doing so would have violated her religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. The court concluded that the county's offer to help Slater transfer to a position in another county department if one became available was an insufficient effort at accommodation of her religious beliefs. However it was unable to determine the question of undue hardship on the record before it. The court did reject the county's argument that accommodating Slater's religious beliefs would have violated the Establishment Clause because the county would have been supporting the employee's religious beliefs. No one has won or lost yet, but the county is not sitting in a very positive position. To back up the claim of 'undue hardship' will require a lot of paperwork to adequately back up their position. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
redy...
you don't fight for your own cause with enough ammunition... for self to defend self, based upon what "they do", always puts self in the defensive seat, the "hot seat", instead of on the "offensive", which puts "them" in the hot seat... the one allowing itself to be put in the "hot seat", will always lose, or continually have to fight bias, instead of itself exposing bias. there is no way same sex marriage is going to win, which it should, if the argument is based upon counter argument against what "they say"... there must be a greater platform to base one's argument for "rights" upon, than counter argument. so, a deeper insight into what actually creates the "rights" of ALL humans. the deeper oneself is buried in self agenda, representing it's own "self rights", the less it shall see how to actually further ALL RIGHTS OF ALL AS EQUAL, which be the only way to effectively expand the "rights" of all as "sovereign beings"... all being born with the free will and choice to select the behaviour for themself they wish, unless it threaten or harm another with bodily harm. just one cent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my lifetime I have never seen a group of people that have been more disrespectful,more intolerant,more "my way or the highway",then the homosexuals.They don't care about anyone but me,myself and I.They piss on everyone.Society and the Christians have bent over backwards trying to get along with the homosexuals and all they keep doing is giving us the middle finger. Why is it when a homosexual is offended the entire world must be turned upside down and backwards to please that one person?Homosexuals want to use either bathrooms-we have to do it,homosexuals want gay pride parades payed for with tax dollars-we have to do it,homosexuals want laws demanding people get thrown in prison for "hate crimes" when people speak out against them-we have to do it.Homosexuals are getting treated like the elite by our Government who bends over backwards to give them anything they demand. I'm getting tired of reading how the homosexuals steam roll over everyone who gets in their way because they dare to say "I don't approve".And I'm tired of our Government who is being led by a dog collar by the homosexuals firing,fining,and telling Christians to shut their mouths and move out of the country. I can only dream that one day I will read a single news story telling me how a homosexual respected the nature of a Christian man or womans beliefs and simply says"I know this person doesn't approve of my lifestyle and I understand why they may not want to associate with me.I do not believe it would be right to force them to accept my way of life against their religious beliefs". But I know tolerance and disapproval is a unknown word in the homosexual community. I was going to ask – “Do you consider your response in someway relevant to my post?” But then I realized that to understand what I had posted requires a bit of critical analysis in a rational thought process. Both hate and a rigid adherence to a belief system can inhibit critical analysis and rational thought processes. Another factor that might inhibit the understanding of broad concepts and the ability to formulate a rational reply is the mental capacity of an individual. So instead of my original question I would ask – which is it that inhibits you from reviewing my post and formulating a well thought out and rational reply to it? Is there any reason you must sound like a psychology professor when you post replies?Critical analysis?This is a forum for a singles site.It's not Harvard law school. My rational reply to your post is well with in my mental capacity.It is with in my mental capacity because I am well informed on these issues concerning Christian/homosexual issues because I read about them in the news on what seems a daily basis.And I can say with all honesty that 95% of the time the homosexuals get their way when it comes to these issues. Your Dr phil anayalis that my brain is somehow inhibited because it is filled with hate and is broken is nothing but stupid. It's not hate you have a problem with.It is the fact that I have a clear understanding that homosexuals do not want equality.They want special rights that put them in a category above everyone else in America.If you would take time to read the Constitution and the Bill of rights(which you obviously have never read)you would realize homosexuals like everyone else has every right every other person living in this country has. Yes Christians discriminate.That is what separates us from the Atheist.If you want us to accept everyone and everything then are we Christians anymore?No we are nothing but Atheists. My well thought and rational reply is that all people are created equal and do not deserve any rights above anyone else regardless of who they are.That includes understanding that marriage is not a right to anyone gay or straight.I understand that in this country people get offended by homosexuals and the life they live.Just as I understand homosexuals get offended by the life Christians live.Why should either side have to accept what they believe is wrong. I find it extremely ironic you talk about oppression and discrimination yet this is exactly what you stand for.You want Christians oppressed and shut up.You want Christians fired,fined,and thrown in jail for speaking against homosexuals.You want special rights that demand Christians have to tolerate,accept,and embrace everything you say and do. |
|
|
|
|
