Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

If religious convictions stop someone from doing a job, they should resign...

Pork bullet

[Rolan7]

I actually was thinking about that, but I don't think they were able to resign exactly?  They shouldn't have been put in that position.
Mainly because of their predictable and honestly reasonable reaction.
Worth researching, for anyone who isn't familiar with it.

[Loud Whispers]

Predictable in hindsight; should careers accommodate to people or people accommodate to careers? Should a muslim doctor refuse abortions? Also a bit confused on the Hindu bit, is that real? Speaking of which, Fisherman Association President hacked to death

[Frumple]

... they were an elected official. Not hired. Doctor example is not really applicable. Since, you know. It wasn't really a career, it was a political position.

I'm not sure why you think they couldn't resign, though, rol? Pretty sure there were no real obstacles to that beyond maybe an emergency vote, and there's usually procedure laid down to handle the position in the interim period. From most accounts I've been hearing, the office in question would probably have ran better with the critter gone anyway.

[Loud Whispers]

... they were an elected official. Not hired. Doctor example is not really applicable. Since, you know. It wasn't really a career, it was a political position.

Surely that means they should do their job even more?

[Frumple]

It means there's functionally zero enforceable quality control on who gets in, and getting them out is a complete bastard. Doctor, you need a degree, and you can probably be fired if you bugger up. Elected nitwit, can be anyone (fun times, the county I'm in had an illiterate alcoholic -- and note, there is no hyperbole or exaggeration in that label -- in a position higher up in the chain than the person being discussed), usually easier to just sit on arse and wait for term to expire than remove. Note this blighter still hasn't been removed from her position or anything official, so far as I'm aware, she's just in bloody jail.

Basically, you can conceivably enforce job performance heuristics on a doctor, and questioning proper level of enforcement regarding them is a meaningful discussion. Doing that to a politician is close to impossible, and is usually only discussed on the other end of a pitchfork.

It'd be nice if they did their job regardless of other pressures, obviously, but you get what you vote for. Blame the electorate :V

[Loud Whispers]

Could she just be a relic of 10 years ago where even Obama wanted traditional marriage and today dishes rainbows like a prism in a sprinkler machine (and I'm not talking Snowdens)? Like at some point she represented most of Murrica and now not so much?

[Rolan7]

... they were an elected official. Not hired. Doctor example is not really applicable. Since, you know. It wasn't really a career, it was a political position.

I'm not sure why you think they couldn't resign, though, rol? Pretty sure there were no real obstacles to that beyond maybe an emergency vote, and there's usually procedure laid down to handle the position in the interim period. From most accounts I've been hearing, the office in question would probably have ran better with the critter gone anyway.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.  I meant that they should have resigned.

Oh and if you meant this:

If religious convictions stop someone from doing a job, they should resign...

Pork bullet

I actually was thinking about that, but I don't think they were able to resign exactly?  They shouldn't have been put in that position.
Mainly because of their predictable and honestly reasonable reaction.
Worth researching, for anyone who isn't familiar with it.

I was saying that the Hindu soldiers in the British army (or however that worked) couldn't easily resign.  Probably.

[Frumple]

Near as I've been able to notice (in admittedly cursory passing), she's a relic of nepotism that people voted for because her mother held the same position. Had nothing to do with representation and everything to do with name recognition.

And @rol, ah. Fair enough. Do remember: When in doubt, georgia is the sarcasm font.

[Reelya]

Predictable in hindsight; should careers accommodate to people or people accommodate to careers? Should a muslim doctor refuse abortions? Also a bit confused on the Hindu bit, is that real? Speaking of which, Fisherman Association President hacked to death

It's a little different if the person is in a position of power which has a monopoly. Individual doctors don't have a monopoly. If one doctor says "I don't do abortions" then he is completely aware that you can just go to another doctor that does do them, whereas if the government official won't stamp your thing due to their own personal beliefs, they are completely aware that you can't just shop around for another person that will - they know that they're forcing their beliefs on you, not just excercising their own freedom to choose, as the doctor is. The government official is knowingly preventing you from doing what you want, rather than just saying they don't want to be involved in something for personal reasons.

[Loud Whispers]

I was saying that the Hindu soldiers in the British army (or however that worked) couldn't easily resign.  Probably.

Volunteers fighting for pride and pay, the only ones I'd consider not being able to leave would be ones too ashamed of leaving their caste occupation or the sons of dead sepoys who grew up and lived a life of soldiery from childhood till adulthood (how do you walk away from that?). Also of note is that Indians did the most recruiting, so you'd think pork bullet wouldn't have arose since they had people who knew the customs but alas, just as marriage crusader has shown, these things will happen.

It's a little different if the person is in a position of power which has a monopoly. Individual doctors don't have a monopoly. If one doctor says "I don't do abortions" then he is completely aware that you can just go to another doctor that does do them

Not always due to geographical distribution of doctors; you can if you're determined enough, but that's another level of difficulty

whereas if the government official won't stamp your thing due to their own personal beliefs, they are completely aware that you can't just shop around for another person that will - they know that they're forcing their beliefs on you, not just excercising their own freedom to choose, as the doctor is. The government official is knowingly preventing you from doing what you want, rather than just saying they don't want to be involved in something for personal reasons.

fair nuff

[Leafsnail]

Abortions are a specialized procedure.  If you don't want to do them you can just not get the training and take one of the many available medical jobs that will not require you to perform them.

[Morrigi]

I think everyone can agree that, regardless of their position on gay marriage, refusing to abide by Supreme Court rulings and orders from federal judges is a terrible idea.

[Sheb]

I'm just going to point out that she didn't get to the Supreme Court. She appealed to the Supreme Court (which everyone has the right to do, provided you've used all the other possible appeals first) and the Supreme Court didn't take her case up, meaning the ruling of the previous court stand.

[Truean]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/04/christian-intimidation-kentucky-judge-does-with-gavel-what-bull-connor-did-with-dogs-and-fire-hoses.html?ref=yfp

Mr. Huckabee has no idea what he's talking about:
"But what law – what specific law – did Mrs. Davis violate? Where is the law that mandates Mrs. Davis issue a marriage license?

That’s a question Republican presidential candidate former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee raised to his supporters in a recent letter.

“That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school,” Huckabee wrote.

“The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law,” he continued. “They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.”

....

Wow, where to begin. The "specific law" is the United States Constitution, and it is not just a law, but the single highest law in America, before which no other law can exist without or in conflict thereof.  The legislature makes "statutes" as a form of law, via legislation, but no legislation can conflict with the Constitution, and the Constitution can't conflict with itself. More specifically, the Supreme Court found that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated by not allowing gay individuals to marry.

In oversimple summation, the ban on gay marriages violated the US constitution, namely the 14th amendment and its sub parts, which is not just a law, but the highest American Law.... The judge can do that, because the judge gets to determine what the law means, or rather the judge makes judgments. It is his job, and it is in the job title. Simple.

Conservatives have until recently touted respecting "the constitution," but now have multiple problems with and desires to change the constitution to better fit their personal views of how stuff should be. Namely, gay marriage and citizenship, aka "anchor babies." The 14th amendment was part of a comprehensive forced legislation after the civil war. It has been paramount to fighting discrimination in America, from Brown v. Board of Education (making it so black and white kids could go to the same schools, use the same drinking fountains, desegregation, etc), to directly and immediately overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Dred Scott stands as the single worst travesty in the American Legal System's history and was one of the single greatest direct causes of the American Civil War.

The "Anchor Babies" were absolutely approved by the "founders' intention" insomuch as then President Andrew Jackson and three key senators were for this. Moreover, this was upheld in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) for legal immigrants, and at the time there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant," because no distinction at law existed. Everyone was just an "immigrant." The implication that violation of a law by ones' parents or one's self would strip an individual of citizenship appears doubtful.

And all of this, goes to the simple supremacy clause of the US Constitution. Contempt of Court is a thing and it has a long and storied history with a mountain of validity behind it. She was warned and didn't care, so she did it anyhow.

Also Judges absolutely, completely and traditionally DO make law, and it's called "case law" or "precedent." Lawyers cite it every single day and cases turn on it. Brown v. Board of Education, was one such case law precedent case. Congress didn't do that, but rather the Supreme Court of the United States did. Once that happened, President Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to Arkansas to help out the "Little Rock 9" who were black kids trying to go to a "white school," and the President enforced the Court's ruling. Congress didn't do anything, and that's ok. Civics? Most people don't get the first thing about it, and they couldn't even tell what a "County Commissioner" does.

TL;DR- You don't spit in the court's eye about constitutional issues and expect anything less. I wish she didn't have to be jailed but she backed the court into a corner by directly challenging its authority.