By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bouzane on 09 September 2015
Edit Thread
padib said:
Puppyroach said:

So, if we would assume that the clerk is being discriminated upon for not having the right to discriminate (even though I cannot see how the clerk is being discriminated on in any way), who has the most right on its side? The clerk who whishes to discriminate the gay couple based on religion or the gay couple that wishes to discriminate the clerk based on the law? One can change job, the other can change clerk. Who has the most right in your opinion?

Well, good question. Either way they have options. However in one case, the clerk changing jobs is a radical change in her life. It's not an easy option and perhaps she considers her position as a means to make her preference matter, so losing her job puts her in a tough spot in more than one ways.

Changing clerks is not an issue. The couple were there to make a statement.

Also, the clerk ended up being jailed. Bottom line, I think that harmony failed here big time.

@JWein. She was denied the right to act according to her beliefs. She is persecuted.


These same sex couples aren't getting married because they actually want to receive equal treatment but to simply make a statement? That's totally not nonsense made up by sombebody who has never met the people being discriminated against.

Also, what beliefs? Do you mean the religious traditions that the Clerk in question repeatedly ignored when she divorced three times (among other actions taken against the traditions that she falsely claims to uphold).

Now I know this might be shocking but this woman is not being persecuted based upon her beliefs but instead her actions. If somebody thinks that I should be harmed for whatever reason that's something we tolerate unless they attempt to act upon these beliefs (at which point they are punished for their actions). This clerk violated the law, was found in contempt of court and (rightfully) did not receive special treatment based upon her "beliefs".

America does not enforce traditional marriage and has not done so for quite some time.
It is not the American government's place to enforce the traditions of one religious system over all others as it is an inherently secular organization.
The vast majority of "religious" individuals opposing same sex marriage do not observe Judeo-Christian traditions themselves.
The clerk acted illegally and was provided ample opportunity to correct her actions or vacate her position.
The clerk was well aware of the consequences of her actions before she was arrested.
The clerk was not persecuted for her beliefs but for acting illegally upon those beliefs.
Having "traditional" beliefs does not excuse individuals from failing to act in accordance to the law (and rightfully so).

If you actually adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian doctrine by, for example, opposing things such as divorce or women from having authority over men; that still does not allow you to inject those values into government institutions in violation of established laws.

America no longer has the traditional societal model it did when it was founded. The government does not and should not enforce the values of one religion over all citizens. Individuals do not and should receive the privilege to ignore the law or violate the rights of others based upon their beliefs, even in the rare cases that they actually adhere to these beliefs without picking and choosing what is convinient for themselves like enormous hypocrites without any theological consistency (and therefore no basis in the actual traditional belief systems they claim to uphold).