Josef K |
09-03-2015 06:34 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 1631989)
We don't let Rastafarians smoke weed, we don't let whoever sacrifices chickens for their evil deities do that, we don't allow human sacrifice, we don't allow the Inquisition to stick hot pokers in heretics' orifices, we don't let etc, etc, etc. Freedom of religion is not absolute when it conflicts with the law, and this is most definitely conflicting with the law (especially since she's actively preventing a law from being carried out).
****ing fire the dumb bitch.
|
I mean we do allow the Amish to take their kids out of school after 8th grade though. I agree with you and think the SCOTUS decision I just referenced was wrong, but it's not as clear cut as you're making it seem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddler
(Post 1632732)
Her opinions are her opinions, sure. But her rights end when someone else's begins. And the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage equality is the law of the land and it's everyone's right. Sending her to jail until she complies is one thing. Until her opinions change is another thing entirely.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
(Post 1632739)
The Bat is correct. Has nothing to do with opinions. She either does the job she's getting paid $80K a year for, she quits, or she sits and stews while making her "stand".
|
Fiddler is on the money when he says/strongly implies that the goal of the judge's actions should be compliance. At that point, sending her to jail and making a martyr out of her isn't really the best call IMO - just hire a replacement and maybe, like, dock her pay to pay the new person.
|