Skip to main content

Religious freedom: Personal vs. Professional

I'm frankly getting tired of writing about "religious freedom" laws and arguments, yet it seems that at least once a day, I read a new headline and story regarding the matter. The latest such case involves Linda Summers, a former deputy clerk at the county clerk's office in Harrison County, Indiana, who was fired from her job for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple due to her religious beliefs. In light of this, Summers has decided to fight back against her employer's decision and take the matter to court, as she's filed a lawsuit, contending that employers whom force employees to issue same-sex couples marriage licenses are the bigoted ones in this scenario.

I'm going to try and condense this response as much as possible, because, as I just stated, I'm getting quite tired of reading and writing about this topic. Freedoms are not absolute. While we may be freer than most people in the world on a fairly regular basis, those freedoms are still limited depending on the situation and setting. The workplace is such an example. Linda Summers can believe whatever she so chooses inside or outside of the workplace with regard to religion, an afterlife, the Super Bowl, alien life, gay marriage, or whatever. However, if such a belief prevents her from fully doing her job and serving people equally as according to the law, then that's when she's going to run into problems and potentially get herself fired.

Bigot is defined as, "A person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

It wasn't an act of bigotry for Linda Summers' employer to fire her because she wasn't willing to do her job for each and every person under the law. It was an act of bigotry for Linda Summers to refuse service required by law to a certain group of people based on their sexual orientation. If a person, like Linda Summers, is unwilling to do their job and serve everyone equally, even those they may disagree with on one level or another, they shouldn't be working that job.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/27/3684515/religious-rights-last-best-chance-create-legal-right-discriminate/

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"