Would you quit your job? Rockingham magistrate resigns over same-sex marriage

[One Ugly Christian]

You don't have a right to hold on to a job where you refuse to perform your job duties. You'd be rightfully charged with paying the defense's attorney fees and costs for pursuing a frivolous lawsuit.

Exactly what one would expect a Satanist to say---whatever is exactly to opposite of what is good and right.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You don't have a right to hold on to a job where you refuse to perform your job duties. You'd be rightfully charged with paying the defense's attorney fees and costs for pursuing a frivolous lawsuit.

I doubt that if what you are being asked to do, is illegal.

 

[Jose Fly]

The fewer fundamentalist Christians in government, the better.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

You don't have a right to hold on to a job where you refuse to perform your job duties...........

Okay atheist: What if a law were passed that said you had to swear an oath to God and swear you believe in God in order to have a job. What would you do atheist?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The fewer fundamentalist Christians in government, the better.

The fewer of your parents offspring the better.

 

[Tinark]

Okay atheist: What if a law were passed that said you had to swear an oath to God and swear you believe in God in order to have a job. What would you do atheist?

Such a law would be unconstitutional and I might file lawsuit. However, if I were a magistrate for the county and I objected to Christians marrying each other due to closely held beliefs, I can not expect to refuse to issue such marriage licenses and expect to hold on to my job. If I tried to initiate a lawsuit because my "rights were violated", I would expect to lose and be assessed defense's attorney fees and costs for filing such a frivolous lawsuit. Next.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

I would not quit, I would just refuse to do it and make them go through the pain of firing me than file a lawsuit for my rights being violated. These are the issues that divide America and will continue to divide us. I have said it all along, the homo crowd may win inclusion through the courts but, will never achieve societal acceptance.

The best answer.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Such a law would be unconstitutional and I might file lawsuit.

yes, like being asked to set your religion aside is unconstitutional. Thats against both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Or do you believe those freedoms only belong to those whom you agree with?

 

[Tinark]

yes, like being asked to set your religion aside is unconstitutional. Thats against both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Or do you believe those freedoms only belong to those whom you agree with?

So if my religion says that it is immoral for two Christians to get married, you think I should be able to hold on to a government job whose function includes issuing marriage licenses, even if I refuse to issue marriage licenses to Christians?

What you aren't understanding is that the oath to God in your dumb example has _no_ relation to the job function itself, while the issuing of marriage licenses is precisely the purpose of the job. Firing someone for not doing the first (if it is a government job) is unconstitutional, firing them for the second, not at all.

 

[Angel4Truth]

So if my religion says that it is immoral for two Christians to get married, you think I should be able to hold on to a government job whose function includes issuing marriage licenses, even if I refuse to issue marriage licenses to Christians?

yes - its not like you are the only person who could marry them.

What you aren't understanding is that the oath to God in your dumb example has _no_ relation to the job function itself, while the issuing of marriage licenses is precisely the purpose of the job. Firing someone for not doing the first (if it is a government job) is unconstitutional, firing them for the second, not at all.

What you are not understanding is the constitution.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Update: The legislature of N.C. passed a bill to allow those who object to recuse themselves from performing gay marriages - and the governor vetoed it - http://www.christianpost.com/news/n...arriage-vetoed-by-republican-governor-139737/

and now:

N.C. Magistrates Can Refuse Gay Marriages; Legislature Overrides Veto

In response to the legal decision, many state magistrates resigned from their official position rather than perform same-sex weddings.

Introduced in late January, Senate Bill 2 was primarily sponsored by Republican State Senator Phil Berger, who also serves as the Senate's president pro tempore.

"Every magistrate has the right to recuse from performing all lawful marriages under this Chapter based upon any sincerely held religious objection," read SB 2 in part.

"Every assistant register of deeds and deputy register of deeds has the right to recuse from issuing all lawful marriage licenses under this Chapter based upon any sincerely held religious objection."

The Legislature passed SB 2 only to have Governor Pat McCrory veto the legislation in late May. In a statement, Gov. McCrory argued that "we are a nation and a state of laws"

"Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath," stated McCrory.

Regarding the successful overturning of the veto, the pro-traditional marriage group National Organization for Marriage released a statement praising the legislature's move.

"This is a huge victory for supporters of marriage and was brought about because of the efforts of NOM's members and others working in support of allies in North Carolina including the NC Values Coalition," stated NOM in Thursday.

 

[journey]

Update: The legislature of N.C. passed a bill to allow those who object to recuse themselves from performing gay marriages - and the governor vetoed it - http://www.christianpost.com/news/n...arriage-vetoed-by-republican-governor-139737/

and now:

N.C. Magistrates Can Refuse Gay Marriages; Legislature Overrides Veto

Thanks for the update. I feel much better about this now. Religious freedom under the Constitution should have been a major consideration to begin with, but it obviously wasn't.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Thanks for the update. I feel much better about this now. Religious freedom under the Constitution should have been a major consideration to begin with, but it obviously wasn't.

I wonder where these people are getting that we all of a sudden have to check our religious freedom at the door of our jobs?

 

[rexlunae]

Update: The legislature of N.C. passed a bill to allow those who object to recuse themselves from performing gay marriages - and the governor vetoed it - http://www.christianpost.com/news/n...arriage-vetoed-by-republican-governor-139737/

and now:

N.C. Magistrates Can Refuse Gay Marriages; Legislature Overrides Veto

North Carolina has now deliberately embraced official discrimination, but not for the first time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

Ironically, those of you cheering to see this nexus for discrimination being opened up would be the most vocal in objection if, say, a magistrate, a government official, cited their own freedom of religion in refusing to perform, say, a marriage between a Christian couple. Holding a public office of trust and responsibility creates a duty that sometimes trumps personal feelings that you may hold, and if you weren't so blinded by your homophobia, you'd see that perfectly well.

As for the officials who mistake a courtroom for a church, and who think that they are performing some sort of religious service instead of public service, I'd say good riddance.

 

[TracerBullet]

North Carolina has now deliberately embraced official discrimination, but not for the first time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

Ironically, those of you cheering to see this nexus for discrimination being opened up would be the most vocal in objection if, say, a magistrate, a government official, cited their own freedom of religion in refusing to perform, say, a marriage between a Christian couple. Holding a public office of trust and responsibility creates a duty that sometimes trumps personal feelings that you may hold, and if you weren't so blinded by your homophobia, you'd see that perfectly well.

As for the officials who mistake a courtroom for a church, and who think that they are performing some sort of religious service instead of public service, I'd say good riddance.

:first:

 

[rougueone]

Rockingham magistrate resigns over same-sex marriage

http://www.news-record.com/rockingh...cle_6d2170ac-556e-11e4-9d70-001a4bcf6878.html

Good for him - Its always awesome to see someone unwilling to compromise their faith in the Lord.

Would you quit your job if you were informed that you had to violate your faith in order to perform any aspect of it?

A much needed topic.

 

[rougueone]

Thanks for the update. I feel much better about this now. Religious freedom under the Constitution should have been a major consideration to begin with, but it obviously wasn't.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II : Ignore Amendment I. Which has occurred.

 

[rougueone]

“This is not an issue of people’s rights to have religious beliefs, but people try to spin it that way,” said Chris Sgro, the executive director of Equality NC. “This is their job, and it’s a job requirement.”



“This is not an issue of Nazi soldiers' rights to have religious beliefs, but people try to spin it that way,” said Heinrich Himler, the executive director of "The Final Solution, Inc.,"“This is their job, and it’s a job requirement.”

Very compelling comparisons.
Awhile back I read a political/religious commentary by a known author and he concluded that Hitler's Third Reich was revived . He was speaking of the U.S.. The only difference he stated was that the U.S. master plan was inclusive of all people Hitler hated. " The deviants". He went on to state how clever this would be because people would argue " No way", Hitler wanted a superior German people and a world of ideal Caucasians. Yet how clever to aim ones sights on the deviants to hide the "New World Order-reich " agenda.
I don't see this " yet " . But it is in blooming state. I do see the absolute potential for such. Especially in light of U.S. opinion turning against Israel. Which started a small global firestorm against Israel . And is growing fast. As Israel was America's staunchest ally.

Then comes into frame the quotes " This is their job, and it’s a job requirement.” So as the ' marching orders" are being dispensed at the local order, samll, as Hitler started. Convincing people " it's their duty" . This absolves them from their personal beliefs.
" Just doing my job, I simply work here and follow order's".

People we are in a very dangerous time in American and world history. If we do not step up now when it's still " small". What will we do when it's real big? The question answer's itself.

What will you do ?

 

[rougueone]

I so often am humbled by those whom like Magistrate John Kallam Jr. took the incredible sacrifice of putting Jesus first. He so fully displayed his ability to carry Gods cross, irrespective of the cost. It is by these sincere men I am so encouraged and Jesus so glorified.

 

[Puppet]

Losing jobs over imaginations only further supports imaginations which the heavens don't care about. Now the quitter can't feed the poor which the heavens care about. Imaginations only starves the poor and kills them on purpose.