If U have been on a Job for years and then the laws change and u tell your employer before the fact u can not do a new legislative duty because of your convictions.. Should you be fired for refusing?

I do not believe so.. What do you think?....Blessings...Miles








http://www.nrtoday.com/article/20101110/NEWS/101119963/1063/NEWS&parentprofile=1055

ENLARGE A federal jury is scheduled to decide in the spring whether a Douglas County clerk was wrongly fired after she objected on religious grounds to registering same-sex couples as domestic partners.

Kathy Slater, who worked for the county for more than a decade before she was dismissed in February 2008, is seeking unspecified damages and attorney fees. A judge recently ruled that the lawsuit, which was filed last year in U.S. District Court in Eugene, can go to trial, rejecting a county motion to dismiss the suit as unfounded.

Slater, 49, contends the county could have accommodated her “sincerely held religious belief” by having the other five clerks in the office register same-sex couples, which takes about 10 minutes per couple.

County Clerk Barbara Nielsen said granting Slater's request would have posed an undue hardship on her office. It would have meant pulling clerks away from other duties and could have caused couples to wait. As a result, Nielsen said she was not legally obligated to accommodate Slater.

Nielsen declined to comment Tuesday. Efforts to reach attorneys representing Slater and the county were not successful.

The 2007 Oregon Legislature passed legislation recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships. The law allows gay couples to file a declaration that gives them the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.

Since the law took effect in February 2008, 42 domestic partnerships have been registered in Douglas County. The bulk of those took place in 2008, with eight more registrations in 2009 and five so far this year.

Slater wrote Nielsen a letter two months before the law went into effect expressing her concerns. Nielsen responded by saying she needed to have each of her clerks carry out the full range of duties.

“I tried to put my thoughts and feelings aside to go ahead and do it, but I just can't,” Slater said in a court deposition.

She said she objected to homosexual activity because it's an “abomination.” In her deposition, Slater said registering same-sex couples would have made her feel she was condoning homosexuality.

“I knew in my heart I couldn't do it,” she said in the deposition.

Slater, who attended Boise Bible College in Boise, Idaho, for two years in the 1980s, said she was guided by the Bible, which she described as the “truth.”

In her own deposition, Nielsen said she didn't want Slater to leave, but that she didn't have any choice. Slater refused to resign, so Nielsen to relieved her of her position.

“So I told her I was going to have to let her go. And she cried and I cried and she asked if I would do a letter of recommendation. And I told her, of course,” Nielsen said in the deposition.

The lawsuit, filed by Eugene attorney Brian Pocock, claims the county did not try to find Slater a job in another department. Instead, she was told to apply and interview for other jobs.

She applied for three clerical positions but was not hired for any of them. Pocock said the county should have tried to find Slater another position.

In a September ruling sending the case to trial March 1, U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin said the county's efforts to find Slater another county job were inadequate. The county placed the onus on Slater to find a new job, rather than accommodating her religious beliefs by finding her another position, Coffin wrote.

Coffin also noted that Nielsen did not ask the other clerks whether they were willing to take up the slack. He said the clerk also did not contact other counties to see if the issue had come up and how they had responded.

After Slater was fired, the county did not hire a replacement. Therefore, Coffin wrote, the county would not have suffered an undue hardship. He also noted that two of Slater's colleagues processed 26 of 37 registrations recorded through 2009. Three other clerks processed the rest.

“Because I cannot tell from the record before me whether an accommodation to Ms. Slater would have caused an undue hardship to the county, the county's motion for summary judgment is denied and the county will be required to present their evidence on that issue to a jury,” Coffin wrote.

Yeah, I sort of agree here. There should be some type of grandfathering in on that. Now, anyone new coming in, shouldn't get the same excuse, but for one there before the new laws went in to effect, there should be some leeway, adjusting, etc. to try and minimize any of it.

Of course, since not everyone believes in marriage as this uber-sacred religious thing, marriage on the grounds of a legal issue should just be dealt with as the piece of paper it is. It's not her right to judge or let her beliefs forbid anyone else their rights.

According to the OP it seems as though there were other employees who could have covered for that one area.

However, if registering couples for a marriage license is part of a person's duties, and the law changes to incorporate a new element in that process (registerins same-sex couples)then her job has not really changed. Only her view of the job has changed.

But since she has been there so long she must be a valued employee. Personally I would have no problem if her job had been retained at a lesser salary - after all, she refuses to do all the tasks assigned to that job.

If your job changes and you disagree with the changes, leave the job or transfer to another section of the department or something. When we take a job we agree to do what that job entails and if it changes along the way we should be willing to roll with the changes.

Personally I believe this woman to be taking things much too personally. She isn't marrying someone of the same sex and it isn't any of her business who marries who as long as they are of age and mental consent.

Truly,

No one is asking her to marry someone of the same sex, so what's the problem. She's just registering state affairs, she doesn't even need to condone the affairs at all. It's not unlike a court stenographer, they just write down what people say, they aren't condoning everything that is being said.

She could hardly scream "religious discrimination" because no one is asking her to quit. She's more than welcome to continue the job, or not. It's HER CHOICE.

So what's the problem?

She's being FIRED because she's REFUSING to do the WORK.

That's her problem and no one else's. No one is asking HER to do something against her religion. Registering people as being recognized as 'married' by a government has absolutely nothing at all to do with any God she might believe in.

The USA also worships money. I'll bet she didn't complain about that.

I see it as she was honest and up front from the beginning with her boss.

She told her when the law changed she had a problem doing it.

To me it seems as they wanted to make an example of her.

Her lawyer has pointed this out I believe.

The very fact she applied for other jobs and was not given the job shows she was not trying to shove her beliefs down anyones throats .. She was trying to be true to herself.

Isn't that what gay couples who apply are saying they are doing?

Then after they fired her they did not replace her.

That does not sound like a problem for the county then here either to just let someone else do it.

I believe she will and should win this case. She is just trying to live her beliefs and when she took the job this was not an issue that anyone ever thought about coming up.

If this is legal then why can't any company come up with a new rule just to target anyone they want knowing they will quit before they will do the new part of the job. These are case by case issues but when I was working I felt wierd u might say when christmas parties came about..Halloween parties many things that can be found in someones beliefs systems they celebrate and are in the workplace.

Noone cared if i liked it or not but i tolorated it. But I would not participate in these holidays because when you do u do put your seal of approval on it.


No different than when you vote.. You should have a choice....Blessings...Miles

Was she "fired" or did she "quit"?

I think that's a technicality that will probably come up in her court case.

Did her boss go to her and say, "I know you aren't going to be cool with registering gay marriages so I've decided to fire you"?

Or did she go to her boss and say, "I can no longer do my job because things have changed that I can no longer handle"? In other words, she refused to continue doing the job, thus she QUIT.

I mean, if a person is getting "fired" because the refuse to do their job does it even make sense to say that they are being "fired".

Sounds to me like she quit because she doesn't like the new laws.

Thats not my point. and those things why am io subject to them? I feel violated by them.

So if you all were a clerk of a county or lets say a justice of the peace because thier was a stir about this a few years ago in louisiana about a justic of the peace would not marry or issue a liscence to a gay couple if i remember right.


So scenerio.

At this point in time in this country Arabs who take child brides are horrible discusting to us.. Inside we can not fathom this being right.

A day comes when laws are changed and a arab man can take a child bride.. They come to you to file paperwork and u r uterly discusted with this.

Would you do it anyway and say "here you go Best of luck to ya"

Would ya?/ Shalom...Miles

Boy u do have a warped since of humor.

When I was in HS in the late 70's we all know most places people were appalled at Gay couples.

Its history.

Your violated comment u can deal with as I am speaking of the mind as I know some can not fathom anything other than rearend projectile stimuli for thier unincorporated brain cells.


What i am saying about other beliefs/laws around the world we are right in the middle of a war for whats right and whats wrong.

Child brides are legal ion some societies.

We are appauled at it in most peoples minds.

We were in my part of the world a gay couple 30 years ago.

So it could happen as long as we do not have a defined set of human rules to live by and not let anyone change them because they feel descriminated against.

If we continue this scenerio could very possibly happen.

So if it does will you be fine in doing your job in what absolutely discusts u and me at this point in time? Blessings of Shalom...Miles

If you choose to take a government job, then this is what you have chosen to do. Thus you must go by the laws of the government. If you disagree with them, then quit the job and see if you can get the laws changed. It's that simple.

You use a scenario where Arabs are marrying "Children" but who created the arbitrary age line that denotes what distinguishes a 'child' from an 'adult'. In the USA that age is typically 18 although I think some states actually recognize 16 for some things.

So a 16 year old would be considered a 'child' in one state and an adult in other, depending on what it's with respect to.

Other countries might push the age of an 'adult' younger yet, in include 14 or even 12 year olds.

So who's to say what even constitutes a "child" really?

Many people in the USA would think it is utterly disgusting for a 40 year old man to date an 18 or 19 year old "young woman". He's twice her age! Yet it's perfectly legal.

In fact, you can take that to even much further extremes. You can have a 60 year old man dating, or marrying an 18 year old "girl" and it's perfectly legal. I haven't personally experienced such bliss yet, but hey, ya never know.

According to the Christian Bible all I need to do is rape an 18 year old young woman in a field and she'll have to marry me. For this is God's WILL and Commandment.

In some ways, it would be kinda cool if the good old USA was truly a Christian nation. It would make finding a wife a whole lot easier.

Well u can make me laugh.

Yes u r right we have a huge problem in society today. Your morals my morals his or her morals are going to be different but we have to live by the law of the land.

But then we forget about what life was like 200+ years ago when these guidelines for laws was created.

We have become a fools advocate.

We defend anything and everything if it works for us.

Its where do we draw the line.

QUOTE>

County Clerk Barbara Nielsen said granting Slater's request would have posed an undue hardship on her office. It would have meant pulling clerks away from other duties and could have caused couples to wait. As a result, Nielsen said she was not legally obligated to accommodate Slater

end quote

This was an UNDUE HARDSHIP ON HER OFFICE.

How was this?

quote..

After Slater was fired, the county did not hire a replacement

end quote..

Undue hardship/.. So much so after they fired her they did not REPLACE HER!!!!!!!!!!!!

Real Hardship.....

They wanted to make an example out of her so that..


THIS WOULD SEND AN UNDEFIDED MESSAGE....


This message could be for several things.

This is what happens if u do not do as I SAY>>

This is The GOVT> AN U WILL OBEY OR ELSE!!!!


Gays u will accept or else...

This is the way the workplace works and anyone who has a clue of real life knows BOSSES send SIGNALS to everyone that are unDEFINED that they can get out of yet impose them on the employees rights by HOW THINGS HAVE WENT DOWN IN THE PAST.

So No she did nothing wrong. SHE Tried to work with her BOSS!! Shalom...Miles

Blind man see that?


Where where???


Over thier...Over Thier....


Yea I see its over Thier I see Over thier.. Yes Boss Yess Boss Thats Right Over Thier

I don't see any major problem in society today as far as morals are concerned.

You ask, where do we draw the line.

Well, when it comes to allowing things, I believe in FREEDOM.

Isn't that ultimately what the USA is supposed to stand for?

When it comes to disallowing things, I draw the line when someone is harmed by an action. This is why murder, rape, stealing, child abuse, spousal abuse, hate crimes, etc., are outlawed. Someone is being harmed.

In the case of gay marriages by two consenting adults who's being harmed? Certainly not me or you! There's no way that the union between other people can harm me directly.

Well, I could argue that when two women marry each other that just makes it all the harder for me to find a wife.

But then if guys are marrying other guys I guess that makes up for that.

In the meantime, how is any of this harming me, or anyone else?

It's not. Therefore, what the hell is the problem?

The other thing too, being gay obviously isn't something NEW. Clearly homosexuality must have been recognized as far back as early biblical times to have even been mentioned in those texts.

Therefore homosexuality has obviously been a part of human nature for eons!

Maybe it's about time that we finally acknowledge this FACT and quit trying to pretend that it's not a valid human trait of at least a small percentage of the population at all times.

In fact, if homosexuals are allowed to marry maybe they'll adopt children and guess what? The homosexual human traits would slowly disappear because they would not longer be passed along via heterosexual marriages of genuinely gay people who have babies anyway and pass on their genes.

Hey it's just a thought. But there is a lot of wisdom in the idea that once you stop fighting something and learn to accept it, it may just go away altogether. Fighting it is what makes it grow strong.

This is why a "War against Terrorism" was a really STUPID idea by they way. But that's material for a whole other thread.

U make alot of good sence.

But From the beginning of this if we were not talking about religion and gays then this firing would take on a different outlook.

But its at the heart of it.

Why should anyone be hired and then they be forced to do something different than they have been doing for years if they have a personal reason for not doing it?

Mumbo jumbo huh?

When we allow diety of any kind to rule us by fear then fear wins.

The workplace our govt. ect tries t rule us by our own fears.

They turn them around against us.

So here we have a simple workplace dispute that is making the papers?

Why?


Could it be the media uses it/our own govt. to manipulate us by our fears?


Why not?

How many absolutes can be accomplished by saying.. Hey we the Govt. backs your rights as Gays.

At the same time We the Govt. takes the middle class and puts them in thier place in the workplace.

I know u know exactly what i am saying.

We are used.. we are our own worst enemy..Blessings...Miles

While I think it wrong that she 'judged' others based on her personal religious convictions...

I do believe that the founding documents might be on her side.

One Nation under GOD.

She was exercising her right to place god in his proper place in HER life.

One nation under whose god? Is the god bothered by homosexual relationships?

That is not a strong defense.

Let's get to the heart of this matter with same facts.

The limitations of jobs are most often connected to the limitations of skills, knowledge, and ability. Other than that, the economy, or where we live, my also limit our choice of jobs – but no one forces a person to take or keep any position.

The job did not change when the law of that state made same-sex marriage legal. It was the same job, she wasn’t even required to learn anything new. Her reasons for deciding she no longer wanted to do that job were her own. There was really no reason for her to tell her boss why, she simply had to give notice and leave.

Moreover, individual religious beliefs are legally protected under privacy laws so as not to place further limitation (via discrimination) on a person’s choice of jobs.

That leaves it up to the individual to determine if a ‘deeply held’ religious belief would interfere with a particular job. It is not up to employers to accommodate religious beliefs.

In fact, most religious people who have the kind of ‘deeply held’ religious belief that Kathy Slater does, are also ‘deeply’ conservative. So her position in this matter, and those conservatives who would agree with her, seems rather hypocritical, considering that the same conservatives also believe in UNREGULATED CAPITALISM.

There is also another matter to consider – religious beliefs are infinite. It would cripple every business if they had to accommodate every ‘deeply held’ religious belief.

That’s just another point that upholds the validity and rationality of creating a legal system that is not held to any religious standard. It is why Americans are supposed to believe that our form of government is so valuable. It is why so many people are against a theocratic state rule. It is why people are asked to consider law in terms of how those policies ‘ethically’ relate to the population as a whole and not to the ‘special interest’ of any person or group.

Kathy Slater’s rights were not infringed upon. She had a choice to either continue doing the same job she had been doing or putting her beliefs before her job. That was HER concern, NOT a concern of her employer.

Did not mean I agree with her 'interpretation' of god... Just that she has the right to say 'I can not do that'...

Not a defense cause I reckon I would have fired her also. Her rights end where another persons 'rights' begin.

If I'm not mistaken, there are serveral places in THE BOOK, which direct believers to follow the law of the land. It also points out that rulers gain and hold their positons at HIS will and men cannot know His will.

Therefore, it is right to follow the laws of 'men' who hold their rule at HIS will. I know these ideas exist in scripture because it was twisted and used successfully by Emperers and Kings to keep their populations of believers in line. It became known as the 'Devine Right of Kings'.

The law of the state, in which Kathy Slater worked, recognized
same-sex marriage. The law of the land which was commissioned by its rulers that serve HIS will. It was Ms. Slater's job to register couples for marriage, she would have been following the law of the land, instead she chose to follow a spiritual Law, putting HER spiritual redemption above HIS will.

It might seem that Ms. Slater, and those who support her stance, have decided they know HIS will better than He does. At the very least they have decided to act out of self-interest, regarding thier personal spiritutal salvation, placing that in higher regard than the effects of their actions on others.

Or is something else at work there?

Yea thiers agenda here alright.

His will is many things so to say his will was not what she did because she did it is not saying which will happen or do we not see how anythi ng can be twisted.

Even your knowledge of scripture goes deep so what u was in was very deer to you.

His will is the scriptures. They can not be broken.

This was her job. This was her duty. What chaanged? Did she?

No.... so what makes you think just because you believe something she see's as sacred is a fairy tale book.

Gives you the right to step all over her.


We did not in this coutry our parents and Grand parents in the workplace as the New Age of Computers came on all of a Sudden Say You have to do Computers or no job?

Did we do that?


Then how many older people was thier grandfathered into the same position as thier job got more technical?


Has her job not got out of hand for her?

Where's her compassion?


How much courage had to come from her to stand up for her beliefs even thopugh she KNEW they were not going to like it?

A lot. The Law of The Land?

It NEVER goes against his Law and be ok.

If you believe it is sin and you go on ahead and do it anyway. Then it is SIN TO YOU>>


Not anyone else is this sin to. It a sin unto yourself because you knew it was wrong for you.

So what Law did she break?

It had to do with her standing up for what she truely believe she had to do.. No Ifs, and Buts about it.


We throw around religion like its a 2 inch toothpick and its alright.

But no not really.. Cause you insult yourselves when you do.

We can't be so caught up that we do not see devide and Conquer as The Kings have always devised.


She is know different than the Auto Worker who stands up for his beliefs. None. Why should a clerk for the county be expected to be a Politian..


Evil Men in High Places Look at what they want and see. We Elect them then we take our anger out on one of us..ourselves we.

they did not even replace her.. Why? They knew they did wrong.

They did not want to hire someone then she get her job back.. Whats that tell yua on the state of Minds?

So what she says what she says. let her be.. Let her have that right.

Take it away and u will take away in the future your rights also.

What did she harm? Really?/ Blessings....Miles