Thursday, May 13, 2010

The very definition of a "no-brainer."

So ... any bets?

Same sex vs. religious freedom case in Sask. court

Saskatchewan's top court has begun to hear arguments in a case that pits gay rights against religious freedoms.

Lawyer Michael Megaw argued Thursday before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal that the law should not force marriage commissioners to perform same-sex marriages if it's against their religious beliefs. Megaw said that making them do so forces them to "park their rights at the door."

If I have days where I just want religious yobs to burst into flame, does that make me a bad person?

WHEN STUPID PEOPLE COMMENT: While this case deserves to take no longer than the corresponding justices saying something like, "Either do your job or piss off," commenter "pastordave" thinks he's being outrageously clever with a proposed compromise:

This is, of course, appallingly idiotic crap. There is no "grandfathering" to be done since absolutely nothing has changed. A marriage commissioner's job is, quite simply, to marry those people legally entitled to get married under the laws of Canada. Whether or not that definition changes over the years should matter not one whit to the job description of said commissioner.

Do the job. Or fuck off. Are we done here?


Gene Rayburn said...

so in the case of Pastordave's logic I think everyone who downloaded files before the new copyright laws should be grandfathered. As well as the government's drug laws.

Maybe we should just be grandfathered for everything Harper

Moon Rattled said...

Ditto for nurses who get uppity in the gyne unit. Go work in emergency.
(Preachy "Christian" nurses can be insidious bitches.)

Scotian said...

What arrant nonsense. Such a solution is the sort of thing embraced by those that fail to understand that it is not the place of the employee to set the terms that they will accept doing their job, if they don't like the way it evolves they are free to seek other employment, I thought that was the way conservatives saw things, but wait, I'm forgetting the it only applies to everyone else rule so many of them seem to think applies to them, especially when they wave their religious conscience flag.

Seriously, either marry those that by law are eligible or find another job, you do not get to place your personal wishes or beliefs as a filter ahead of the law, especially in a job where you are being paid with public funds. This is up there with those that want the right as pharmacists to refuse to sell abortifacts or even contraceptives on religious morals grounds even though they have no right to place their religious beliefs in the way of medical decisions made by actual doctors (which pharmacists most certainly are not) except this case is even worse because they are paid with public funds in a public sector position.

All government services must be applied equally to all citizens that qualify under the law without exception, if these folks cannot understand that then they have shown just how poorly they understand the rule of law, equality under it, and inherent fairness. No one has the right to place their personal beliefs in the way, I wonder how they would be feeling if it was a case of public employees wanting the right to refuse to service someone based on an objection rooted in their disbelief in religious concepts such as God despite being eligible under the laws of the land, somehow I don't think they'd think giving such power to exempt to the employee for reasons of personal conscience such a good thing then, hmmm? Not that this is a news flash alas.

Rev.Paperboy said...

I want to get a job as a marriage commissioner and refuse to marry anyone with red hair. I think they might be genetically different from other people - and you know what they say about redheads. They are hot tempered, passionate, allegic to sunlight -- obviously ill-suited for marriage and child-rearing, so I won't marry anyone with red hair to anyone else if I am a marriage commissioner. Do I still get the job and can I still stick to my personal convictions?

Lindsay Stewart said...

oh i'm sure pastor dave's logic would apply perfectly well in all manner of conservative employ. like at the drive-thru when hunter refuses to serve the new chicken sandwich deluxe because when she was hired there was no new chicken sandwich deluxe and why do you hate baby jeeziz? huh.

I coughed up a hairball said...

It's worse than you think. A bunch of the right wing family values interveners filed "evidence" about the evils of homosexuality and gay marriage. One of them filed an affidavit sworn by Paul Cameron, a completely discredited "psychologist" who talked about how the world will end if this tolerance of homosexuality is allowed to continue. And there was no cross examination!! He could have been destroyed. And in court their lawyers made outrageous arguments about how gay people should stop destoying the god given gift of sexuality. It went beyond what we have seen before in canadian gay rights cases. But I'm told the Court was pretty good about shutting down that kind of crap. It is outrageous that the government is considering passing this stupid legislation, but apparently the case went pretty well.