User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 42

  1. #21
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    So I tend to perceive it differently... even if I have major concerns about whether or not they should suck it up and do it anyway because it's their job.
    Is it any different from an enlisted soldier who refuses to fight a certain enemy?

    At least this sex therapist has the right to quit.

  2. #22
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Is it any different from an enlisted soldier who refuses to fight a certain enemy?
    Again, a good point... although we tend to deal with conscientious objectors by letting them bail up front and do something different for the military.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    my thoughts are still- if you have moral objections to a part of your job and therefore can't carry it out, don't bother taking it- there's got to be some job where you don't have to do things that go against your morals
    I don't think people pick careers assuming that later they're going to get canned because of their beliefs.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #23
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I don't think people pick careers assuming that later they're going to get canned because of their beliefs.
    he should have looked ahead as to what his job might include... then if it changes, ask to change to a job where he doesn't have to do that

    it really annoys me that people are sympathizing with some dude who didn't do his job and got fired when I can't find a job!!!
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  4. #24
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    I would like to just point out whot the guy himself said.



    "I have the ability to provide counselling services to same-sex couples," he said.


    If yeu have the ability, and refuse to do so, then yeu're refusing to do yeur job, hence, yeu get fired. That has nothing to do with religion nor gays.

    Yes, he may have a religious reason to not provide counciling to such, however, if he's going to say "I will not help gay couples" then he can't advertise that he CAN, when he obviously either can't, or won't. The least of his concerns there is false advertising which he can be charged for as well on.



    Now, in this particular case, as far as I can tell from the article, he didn't specifically discriminate however, he merely stated he didn't agree with it, didn't feel comfortable with it, and requested of his manager that he be allowed to give those cases to someone else who was more apt at handling such. This, to me, seems perfectly reasonable, but then again, I don't know the specifics of the case either.

    It also depends on several other factors, such as how many employees there were in the office and such. If he was incapable, or would at least provide significantly lower quality work, or risk stress and a leave of absence from work due to such, then there are reasons an employer may choose to remove yeu from work.

    For example, let's say that someone is of a religion that refuses to work on saturdays because they're sacred. That individual is hired part time to do weekend work... they refuse to show up on saturdays and did not mention that limitation during their hiring process. They will be fired, almost guaranteed, as they are incapable of performing the tasks required by their job.

    In the case listed here, the individual in question only got fired *AFTER* a discussion with their manager on the matter, which implies that their employer was not aware of this limitation at the time of hiring. Meaning if they got a case related to such, they may be required to hire someone else to do his job for him, or start juggling who gets which case, which may be more effort than they're willing to deal with.

    Regardless, there's alot of things that aren't provided for information in the article. A case like this would be very complex on many levels, and not just a "zomg discrimination!". Firms that have employees like that tend to have very low turnover rates... they don't ditch employees at the drop of a hat by any means since it takes years to settle them into a position properly and get experience, and there's not many descent replacements that have the experience/training required. Either this was one issue among many, or it was actively interfering with their work, or there was a high risk of the employer being sued or otherwise put at liability for reduced or lacking service to clientele who are paying for such services.

    I don't know all the facts though, but it seems like there'd be some fairly strong reason to remove him from the position if anything. That's not mcdonald's; they don't go through 20 employees a month, and it's unlikely they'd fire him unless they had enough reason to believe that the situation could not be amended. Most likely something more happened that couldn't just be delt with by having a different employee handle those cases.

  5. #25
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Church and State are separate and have been for a long time. Worship away, but don't inflict that on others, especially those seeking state financed healthcare.
    The irony is that England has a state religion and compulsory religious education. Yet they seem to have far fewer religious liberties than americans. This is do to the fact that their government is much more socialistic than ours and impinges on more aspects of everyday life. The more the government does the more its religious/philosophical views are forced onto people. This is why I support a very limited government.

    This is a case of competing rights. The right of a counselor to practice according to his conscience and the right of a homosexual to receive counseling services. I fail to see how the counselor is inflicting his view on anyone by refusing to counsel certain patients. They are free to go to other counselors. Whereas the government failed to accommodate the religious views of the counselor. Thus the government forced its religious views onto the employee.

    I think the real crux of the matter is that if the government is not limited then it will force its own philosophical viewpoint onto people. I really don't see the difference between the government forcing policies based on religion onto people and the government forcing policies onto people based on pluralism or secular humanism. Taking a secular position is not the same as taking a neutral position.

    As for discrimination. I don't think Homosexuals should have "status" protection from discrimination. Because Homosexuals are fundamentally defined by their behavior and not by any physical attribute. Moreover, in most cases of discrimination there wouldn't be an issue if the person had same-sex attraction, but was celibate or married to someone of the opposite sex.

    MP's concerns are outlandish. The civil rights act has been protecting religious americans from discrimination for over 40 years and we haven't seen the kind of abuse you indicate.

  6. #26
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    The irony is that England has a state religion and compulsory religious education. Yet they seem to have far fewer religious liberties than americans. This is do to the fact that their government is much more socialistic than ours and impinges on more aspects of everyday life. The more the government does the more its religious/philosophical views are forced onto people. This is why I support a very limited government.

    This is a case of competing rights. The right of a counselor to practice according to his conscience and the right of a homosexual to receive counseling services. I fail to see how the counselor is inflicting his view on anyone by refusing to counsel certain patients. They are free to go to other counselors. Whereas the government failed to accommodate the religious views of the counselor. Thus the government forced its religious views onto the employee.
    The government didn't have anything to do with it. The employee was fired by his MANAGER. Not the government.

  7. #27
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    The government didn't have anything to do with it. The employee was fired by his MANAGER. Not the government.
    I might have been mistaken on that point. Apparently relate is a national federated charity, but I don't know what that means and google is not helping...

  8. #28
    Senior Member Forever_Jung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    ...the thread isnt about me...
    Not about your views?

    Thread Title: I think this is wrong.

    Furthermore:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I reckon this is wrong. I dont believe if it where a homosexual refusing a service to heterosexuals, for whatever reason, that the courts woudnt support them.
    You posted your thoughts, there was no discussion prompt, I think it is reasonable to assume this thread had something to do with your views.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Get a blog.
    Take this advice from Jaguar, Lark. If you just want to yell your baseless opinions then follow-up with no actual dialogue, why go on a discussion board, when your threads are really just an anti-gay flavored blog?

    You're not the Antichrist, I don't think you are a bad human being, but I believe your little agenda is getting out of hand. You say you're sick of arguing about this in your last thread and then you go and make ANOTHER thread! Are you doing this on purpose!? So much discord!

  9. #29

    Default

    Part of standing up for your religious principles is enduring the blowback. It's something that the martyrs embraced. Lots of principled religious people were crucified, stoned, shot with arrows, drawn and quartered, and a bunch of other things. This guy lost a job. Boo hoo. It's part of the deal.

    If he wants a job that fits better with his personal beliefs, he should seek a private employer that shares them. You don't get to pick and choose when you work in public service.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  10. #30
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    At any rate this has nothing to do with real work expectations. The man had been working there for several years under an agreement that he wouldn't counsel same-sex couples. I don't think same-sex couples account for a very large portion of Relate's clientele. So this is not a case where he is putting an unfair burden on fellow workers. Especially since there is no reason why they can't simply trade clients. His firing seems arbitrary he was asked by his boss what his views were and was sacked a week later. It seems pretty clear he was targeted and fired for his religious viewpoint. Not because he wasn't doing his job.

    Even if my government argument doesn't apply to this case it certainly applies to the Lillian Ladelle case in which a government registrar refused to perform civil partnership ceremonies.

Similar Threads

  1. Do You Think This Is Awkward?
    By Hermit Of The Forest in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-15-2017, 09:28 AM
  2. Do you think people fear INTJs? If so, why do you think this is the case?
    By Scapegoated 4 fun in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-13-2017, 11:20 AM
  3. Do you think this is real?
    By prplchknz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-26-2013, 12:52 AM
  4. I think this is comedic/philosophical genius...
    By SillySapienne in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 11-29-2009, 09:25 PM
  5. what do you think this guy's type is?
    By INTJMom in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-24-2009, 08:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO