|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gay Marriage, and blurred boundaries
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
ISTM that it wasn't just "some RC priest", but Rowan Williams who expressed that idea about contraception ("once you've accepted contraception, then sex is no longer necessarily about procreation - and then there is little reason to comment on what you and your partner do in a sexual manner, so long as no-one gets hurt")
I'm not sure that he didn't say something about recreation as opposed to procreation.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
It could easily have been him, though I think the person quoted had said it back in the 1950's.
It's also been a while (year or two, maybe) since I read whatever article I gleaned that line from.
eta: "t"
[ 10. March 2008, 22:53: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Surely there's a lot of real estate between procreation and recreation? Someone who can't see any other associations for sex has at least an impoverished imagination, if not a very cynical and spiteful attitude about human beings. ETA: Well, about human sexuality anyway.
[ 11. March 2008, 00:17: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
From the " Is Marriage Irrelevant?" thread in Puragtory:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And yet, not to stray into dead horses territory, some percent of those people who think marriage is irrelevant are nevertheless against gays getting married. It's a strange phenomenon.
(Expanding on mousethief's thought]
Maybe we need to see how hard some people will fight for something before we realise its value.
Personally, I think we need to listen to gay people fighting for the right to marry to learn something about how important it is.
[ 26. November 2010, 01:35: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(From same thread)
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not as strange as those who believe it is obsolete and irrelevant working so hard for gays and lesbians to legally participate in an obsolete institution.
Actually I get that. I don't want to join the armed forces, but I support the rights of women and gay people to do so. Why should a dim view of marriage (if I had it) prevent me from believing that people should get to choose it if they want it?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
Allowing access to the institution isn't the same as making it compulsory.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Well, it could have gone on any gay marriage thread, I guess, but this one was the most recent.
In France, apparently, civil unions are gaining popularity at a rapid rate - among heterosexual couples. Here's part of the article from the NYT:
quote:
When France created its system of civil unions in 1999, it was heralded as a revolution in gay rights, a relationship almost like marriage, but not quite. No one, though, anticipated how many couples would make use of the new law. Nor was it predicted that by 2009, the overwhelming majority of civil unions would be between straight couples.
It remains unclear whether the idea of a civil union, called a pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS, has responded to a shift in social attitudes or caused one. But it has proved remarkably well suited to France and its particularities about marriage, divorce, religion and taxes — and it can be dissolved with just a registered letter.
“We’re the generation of divorced parents,” explained Maud Hugot, 32, an aide at the Health Ministry who signed a PACS with her girlfriend, Nathalie Mondot, 33, this year. Expressing a view that researchers say is becoming commonplace among same-sex couples and heterosexuals alike, she added, “The notion of eternal marriage has grown obsolete.”
Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch were, apparently right: they've argued for years that this would be the end result of enacting civil unions instead of marriage for gay couples....
[ 16. December 2010, 18:43: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
The institution created so that gays and lesbians wouldn't "dilute" the specialness of the heterosexuals-only thing called marriage is making "marriage" less popular.
The irony is delicious.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
The institution created so that gays and lesbians wouldn't "dilute" the specialness of the heterosexuals-only thing called marriage is making "marriage" less popular.
The irony is delicious.
I think its just underlined the fact that marriage in a secular context is really just a (temporary) legal contract that two people enter into i.e. no different from a civil partnership. The name is fairly irrelevant. IMO conservative Christians should just treat all secular marriages as 'civil partnerships' and stop fussing about labels.
[ 05. January 2011, 13:27: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I used to work in a French school as an English language assistant.
One of the peculiarities of the French system is that once you become a teacher, the Ministry of Education (or its minions) can assign you to a school anywhere in France. I had colleagues who'd been sent from Brittany and Normandy and Bordeaux and commuted home during the weekends.
There is, OTOH, a points system, whereby the more points you accumulate, the more choice you have over where you get sent. You get points for having taught at a sink school, or being agrégé (a kind of super-teacher) - or for family connections, which included children, marriages, or civil partnerships.
It was apparently not uncommon for teachers to enter "un faux PACS" - a civil partnership with one of their friends, just to increase their points tally.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Marriage is clearly not obsolete if some people want it so badly. I suppose it's a bit like the vote: many Brits can't be bothered, but someone in China would go to jail for it.
I think we live in an interesting time for marriage By attending to marriage, Christians can be distinctive. Many conflate wedding with marriage, which I think is the wrong idea - it's a cleaving together and becoming one flesh, a state of being, not a ceremony or a status (tho' status is important). Over-emphasis on the ceremonial or status without cleaving together is a thin veneer over a weak marriage. I think a strong marriage can be sacramental.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Sorry for DP
In Britain, the state has largely given up on marriage, but it's still needed for all sorts of reasons (children, money etc). For instance, pension rights extend to non-married partners. I think the law will be changed so that cohabitants will have many of the rights/responsibilities of marriage. People may reject marriage, but will end up having its trappings foisted on them anyway. Chrstian marriage used to be the same as secular marriage, but now the meanings are probably different. Pairing up is still done, it's just not done for life so much.
FWIW, if a gay couple has 'cleaved together', I don't see why that shouldn't be publicly marked. I know gay marriage is not biblical, but I hop
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
Now it is illegal to not perform gay marriages.
Link here.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Good.
If you take on a government job, you must follow government policy. You can't pick and choose who you are going to assist based on personal preferences.
If it was okay for marriage commissioners to refuse to marry gay people, why wouldn't it then be illegal for someone at a government employment office to refuse to help women find work because they believe women should stay home, or marry mixed race couples because they believe race mixing is wrong, or whatever?
[ 10. January 2011, 17:09: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Now it is illegal to not perform gay marriages.
Link here.
Not really.
It's illegal to not perform gay marriages if you are paid by the government to perform civil marriages for those legally entitled to them, which includes same-sex couples.
It's still legal for churches to discriminate against same sex couples by refusing to perform their marriages.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Now it is illegal to not perform gay marriages.
Link here.
Not really.
It's illegal to not perform gay marriages if you are paid by the government to perform civil marriages for those legally entitled to them, which includes same-sex couples.
It's still legal for churches to discriminate against same sex couples by refusing to perform their marriages.
John
Well, yes. Exactly. You make a good point on how this will be distorted.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Now it is illegal to not perform gay marriages.
Link here.
Not really.
It's illegal to not perform gay marriages if you are paid by the government to perform civil marriages for those legally entitled to them, which includes same-sex couples.
It's still legal for churches to discriminate against same sex couples by refusing to perform their marriages.
John
In short, sharkshooter is apparently appalled that someone can be fired for not doing their job.
I'm pretty sure that the same would happen to marriage commissioners refusing to marry inter-racial couples or couples marrying outside their religion or just inserting his personal judgement in place of the law in any of a number of other ways.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...In short, sharkshooter is apparently appalled that someone can be fired for not doing their job.
...
I said nothing of the sort.
If I were in that position, I would have already resigned my position, knowing that I could no longer fulfil the requirements of the job.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
...In short, sharkshooter is apparently appalled that someone can be fired for not doing their job.
...
I said nothing of the sort.
If I were in that position, I would have already resigned my position, knowing that I could no longer fulfil the requirements of the job.
And I guess that's what we have to do if the law changes so we can no longer, in good conscience, do everything that is now required. Sharkshooter, I don't think my conscience would direct me in the same way as yours but I hope I'd take your approach in situations where my conscience did prompt me.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
In my mind, there should be a compromised solution. For example, in most areas, there are likely at least 2 commissioners, and if at least 1 of them was willing to marry gay couples, that should be sufficient. There was (is?) talk of a centralized hub which could route gay couples to commissioners who were willing.
The rights of a gay couple to have a particular commissioner marry them seems like it should have less weight than the rights of a commissioner who has worked for 30 years and wishes to be a "conscientious objector". Although, I am enough of a realist to recognize that is not the case.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
That might sound reasonable on the surface, but if your conscientious objection is permitted then (as noted upthread) what about someone else's conscientious objection to inter-racial marriages? Or inter-class, inter-city even? Whose objections do we allow and whose do we forbid?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
"Conscientious objector" status could be invoked to deny services to all kinds of people the employee may not like.
It's a job. Job descriptions change. People should know that when they take the job.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
What about a marriage commissioner who claims to object to all marriages except those between practicing Zoroastrians? At what point does accommodating objections become an excuse to turn a job into a sinecure?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
The difference is, those other classes of couples were legally entitled to be married when the job of commissioner was taken vis-a-vis gay couples were not so legally entitled.
Therefore, we have a contrast between someone who took the job knowing they could not perform it vs someone for whom the terms and conditions of the job changed such that they could no longer perform the job. The situations are not the same, or even similar.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
But surely anyone who accepts a job understands that corporate/government policy may change. They are free to change with it, or move on to another job.
Invoking a conscience clause puts gay couples into an inferior class.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The difference is, those other classes of couples were legally entitled to be married when the job of commissioner was taken vis-a-vis gay couples were not so legally entitled.
Therefore, we have a contrast between someone who took the job knowing they could not perform it vs someone for whom the terms and conditions of the job changed such that they could no longer perform the job. The situations are not the same, or even similar.
And commissioners who took the job in Virginia (or in any other state) before Loving v. Virginia were in that same position, too.
Interracial couples were forbidden to marry before the case, and the law changed. So?
[ 11. January 2011, 14:20: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But surely anyone who accepts a job understands that corporate/government policy may change. ...
Normally some kind of grandfathering or accomodation is made when this kind of thing happens, especially in the government, where policy can change like the wind. But like I said, I don't expect that will happen.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But surely anyone who accepts a job understands that corporate/government policy may change. ...
Normally some kind of grandfathering or accomodation is made when this kind of thing happens, especially in the government, where policy can change like the wind. But like I said, I don't expect that will happen.
On "The National" last night they said that the court left open an option where the province could create a secondary body where non-gay accommodating marriage commissioners could be assigned the non-gay "overflow" from gay accommodating marriage commissioners. They didn't go into specifics, nor it they say whether the province would create such a body.
So instead of a gay couple going to a marriage commissioner and told "No. Here's someone else.", they would be assured of a "Yes. I'll do it." But non-gay accommodating marriage commissioners would be assigned heterosexuals marriages after the initial point of contact.... or something. Again it wasn't clear.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But surely anyone who accepts a job understands that corporate/government policy may change. ...
Normally some kind of grandfathering or accomodation is made when this kind of thing happens, especially in the government, where policy can change like the wind. But like I said, I don't expect that will happen.
But normally when new laws are announced, don't they only take effect some time later anyway? If that was the case with this particular law then there is already an accommodation period.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I think what he's advocating is that the marriage commissioners who were already employed before the C-38 (Same-sex Civil Marriage Act) took effect and have a conscience issue because of the law, should be allowed to refuse performing same-sex marriages until they voluntarily terminate and are replaced. Employees who were hired after C-38 took effect would have to conform with the new requirements.
Eventually, all the dissenters would cycle out of the system.
[ 11. January 2011, 17:45: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Eventually, all the dissenters would cycle out of the system.
"Eventually" can be a long time if it's approximately the length of a civil service career. To pick a similar historical example, the U.S. Army would have had to maintain racially segregated units until the eighties to accommodate racists who signed up before the military was desegregated in 1948.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
... Therefore, we have a contrast between someone who took the job knowing they could not perform it vs someone for whom the terms and conditions of the job changed such that they could no longer perform the job. The situations are not the same, or even similar.
Thus joining a long list of people who have had their jobs reclassified or rendered redundant for all sorts of reasons - organization restructure, hostile takeover, technological change, etc. C'est la vie. Anyone know how the buggy-whip-makers' class-action suit against Henry Ford is going? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But surely anyone who accepts a job understands that corporate/government policy may change. ...
Normally some kind of grandfathering or accomodation is made when this kind of thing happens, especially in the government, where policy can change like the wind. But like I said, I don't expect that will happen.
Doesn't happen for anyone else when their job description changes. They'll either deal or find a new line of work.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But surely anyone who accepts a job understands that corporate/government policy may change. ...
Normally some kind of grandfathering or accomodation is made when this kind of thing happens, especially in the government, where policy can change like the wind. But like I said, I don't expect that will happen.
Doesn't happen for anyone else when their job description changes. They'll either deal or find a new line of work.
I'm not sure that's correct, at least under UK Employment Law, which is not I have to admit my area of specialism (except that I am a lawyer who also happens to be an employer); there is at least a general principle that an employer cannot unilaterally (ie: without the agreement of the employee) vary the terms and conditions of that employee's contract of employment, unless it is to comply with a change in the law. It's that last phrase that's open to interpretation, I guess. It's pretty clear-cut in some instances eg: law changes to require all construction workers to wear hard-hats = all building companies have to enforce this change by effectively varying the T&Cs for their employees. The Civil Partnership Act may be different in its effect, however: it requires public bodies such as Registry Offices to perform civil ceremonies for same-sex couples but it doesn't necessarily flow from this that Registry Offices are able to consequently unilaterally vary the T&Cs for an employee, particularly not if there are other employees willing to have their T&Cs thus varied. Dunno.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Changes to contracts can be brought about by dismissing an employee and re-engaging them on a new contract. I think this is mainly used for wholesale restructures of organisations and to worsen (sorry modernise) terms and conditions. There are lots of places with different levels of benefits etc for different employees.
Sharkshooter, I don't know if you've seen this but the case of Ladelle v Islington involved a Christian registrar trying to opt out of conducting civil partnerships (the closest thing Brits have to gay marriage) (this seems to be what Canada may do). Islington sacked her. She claimed religious discrimination. Islington had an equal opportunities policy which it wanted everyone to uphold. The court decided the requirement put her at a disadvantage as a Christian, but was a legitimate objective to require staff to comply. This was a case where the law had changed by the introduction of civil partnerships. I'm not sure how that was dealt with vis-a-vis contracts of employment but it appears she was simply required to do the work as she was a registrar and the Council was required to register civil partnerships. i wouldn't be surprised if her job was to 'carry out civil registration duties in accordance with the law'.
I think there's a bit of a mixed bag with the rights of religious balanced against the rights of employees to impinge on them, but I think the general trend is that to allow religious belief to be manifested in contravention of equal opps stuff (the high-profile cases have involved Christians) would be the tail wagging the dog and will not be allowed.
I'm sure this case and a similar one have been discussed on the ship.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
There have been court cases here in the U.S. over pharmacists right to refuse filling birth control scripts for religious reasons. Some states do allow this, but require pharmacies have someone on duty who can fill the prescription. Many states still require pharmacists to fill prescriptions if their employer has made filling all prescriptions a part of their job duties. On a side note, it wasn't birth control pills or anything related, but I once had a pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription that he didn't agree with and wouldn't give me the script back to take elsewhere. Let's just say he got rather scorched when was said and done, I got my prescription filled and he was the one who had to fill it.
Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an individual’s religious beliefs don’t exclude compliance with “otherwise valid laws prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate” so unless there is specific wording in the contract allowing employees to not fulfill their job duties, they may have to deal or find another job.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Changes to contracts can be brought about by dismissing an employee and re-engaging them on a new contract. I think this is mainly used for wholesale restructures of organisations and to worsen (sorry modernise) terms and conditions. There are lots of places with different levels of benefits etc for different employees.
Again, though, the employee has to be willing to sign the new contract, otherwise s/he is unfairly dismissed and entitled to compensation. Of course, such employees may be under considerable commercial/financial/moral pressure to sign but they are not legally obliged to do so; they cold refuse, be dismissed and then take the employer to an Industrial Tribunal for unfair dismissal.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Which begs the question of what constitutes a change in the conditions of employment. For example, if an employee gets a new supervisor it could be argued that's a new condition. Or having an office switch over from typewriters to word processors. Does repainting the walls change conditions sufficiently to require a new contract? It seems ridiculously unwieldy to argue that any kind of change requires a contract renegotiation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Funny you should mention the 'typewriters to wordprocessors' argument: about 15 years ago we made the decision to make that very shift in our office. One of the secretaries resisted this, saying that she 'didn't get on with computers and they gave her headaches'. We accordingly offered all manner of special screens etc but to no avail. We took advice from an employment law barrister who advised us that she might have a claim for constructive dismissal if we tried to force her to use the WP computer. Fortunately for us she resigned before the matter came to a head and didn't bring a claim; we were however on tenterhooks for the three months (time limit for bringing a claim) after her resignation.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
There have been court cases here in the U.S. over pharmacists right to refuse filling birth control scripts for religious reasons. ...
Can I insist a kosher butcher sell me a a pork chop? Can I insist a Jewish deli serve me a ham and cheese sandwich, or a Jewish restaurant serve me a steak with a glass of milk? Can I insist a variety store run by a conservative evangelical Christian sell me a porn magazine?
In all cases (the ones mentioned here and other similar cases), should the "rights" of the purchaser trump the "rights" of the seller to not sell something in opposition to their religious beliefs?
Obviously, in some cases yes, in others no, according to the law.
That is my issue.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Indeed, there is evidently a continuum from "should a white supremacist refuse to serve a black man" (no) to "should a Muslim butcher refuse to sell pork" (yes), with the example under discussion here falling somewhere between the two and being complicated somewhat by the fact that these are state rather than privately-owned organisations we are talking about.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Please remember, this is about whether a paid agent of government is allowed to refuse to carry out the law.
The law of Canada, affirmed by both Parliament and the Supreme Court, permits full marriage to same-sex couples. The Government of Saskatchewan (one of the most conservative in Canada) is upholding the law of Canada.
The law has changed since this person became a marriage commissioner, fair enough. But he is now in a position where he seeks to refuse to uphold the law. As a private citizen he is of course entitled to disagree with the law. As, presumably, a christian, he is allowed to refuse to perform same-sex marriages in his church, if he is an agent of the church in this respect.
But in any parallel case -- for example, a police officer refusing to uphold a change in the law on assault because as a (name sect of choice) he disagrees with the change -- the agent would be dismissed without question.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
..., this is about whether a paid agent of government is allowed to refuse to carry out the law.
...
Not exactly. The law allows, but does not require, him to perform a same-sex marriage. It is his employer that is now requiring him to do it. It is therefore about employment law, not marriage law.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
There have been court cases here in the U.S. over pharmacists right to refuse filling birth control scripts for religious reasons. ...
Can I insist a kosher butcher sell me a a pork chop? Can I insist a Jewish deli serve me a ham and cheese sandwich, or a Jewish restaurant serve me a steak with a glass of milk? Can I insist a variety store run by a conservative evangelical Christian sell me a porn magazine?
In all cases (the ones mentioned here and other similar cases), should the "rights" of the purchaser trump the "rights" of the seller to not sell something in opposition to their religious beliefs?
Obviously, in some cases yes, in others no, according to the law.
That is my issue.
It should be noted that, unlike all the other examples you cited, pharmacists have what is essentially a government-mandated monopoly on the distribution of certain drugs, placing them outside a strictly free-market setting where they can carry or not carry whatever products they like.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... pharmacists have what is essentially a government-mandated monopoly on the distribution of certain drugs, placing them outside a strictly free-market setting where they can carry or not carry whatever products they like.
Marriage commissioners do not have a monopoly on performing marriages.
[ 13. January 2011, 16:06: Message edited by: sharkshooter ]
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
sharkshooter, I am glad to see that you think marriage commissioners do not have a monopoly on performing marriages - your previous arguments seem to imply this.
Persons who are under no obligation to marry LGBTQ couples include: clergy whose denominations forbid it, or who allow their clergy to opt out; and private marriage celebrants.
I am somewhat surprised by the implied "nanny state" attitude of sharkshooter toward the civil servants in question. They are adults who chose to become marriage commissioners on behalf of their fellow citizens. If they feel compelled by religious conscience to deny some of those citizens their civil rights, they are by all means free to quit and retrain.
For example, a marriage commissioner in this position is free to become an independent marriage celebrant, no? Get an Internet certificate of ordination and hang out a shingle?
A marriage commissioner - as a representative of Canadian citizens - may not deny some of those citizens their civil rights based on personal feeling.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
... If they feel compelled by religious conscience to deny some of those citizens their civil rights, they are by all means free to quit and retrain.
...
That is exactly what I said.
However, why, when there are other commissioners and clergy willing to perform the marriage, must some who are not willing be forced to do so?
Forget it. We're obviously not going to agree on this.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
... why, when there are other commissioners and clergy willing to perform the marriage, must some who are not willing be forced to do so?
Because they took the king`s shilling and thereby agreed to the king`s terms, even when they change.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
