CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:45 pm
 


$1:
Perhaps the most bizarre comment I’ve seen so far on the recent Saskatchewan court ruling upholding the obligation of public employees to do the job for which they are being paid:

$1:
When same sex marriages begin to produce children, then I will support them. Until then ……………… Further, what if your Mom or Dad had went the same sex marriage route?


The “what-if” has been a pet peeve of mine ever since the “pro-lifers” started using this form of argument decades ago—“what if your mother has aborted you?”
Indeed. And what if she had had a headache that night? What if she and her husband had been practising the Vatican-approved rhythm method? Sounds like a promising line of argument for the “every sperm is sacred” crew, but a lamentably unconvincing moral argument for everyone else.

I leave philosophically-inclined readers to speculate on the ontological (and moral) status of possible worlds, but would simply point out that such thinking, taken to its logical conclusion, not only eliminates abortion but—because every action or refusal to act might conceivably have moral consequences—imposes a kind of agonized paralysis on the human condition.

Meanwhile, the Saskatchewan government is considering an ingenious work-around, which the court decision seemed to invite:

$1:
[T]he court’s written decision raises the possibility of a “single-entry-point” system, where a couple wanting to get married would deal with a central office instead of directly contacting individual marriage commissioners.

The court decision, which cautioned such a system may not ultimately pass a full constitutional test, said a commissioner who didn’t want to perform same-sex marriages because of his or her religious beliefs could make that known to the director of the central office, who, in turn, could take that into account when giving the couple a list of available commissioners.


Ah, that good old Canadian drive to compromise, even when the Charter guarantee of equality under the law is involved. How soon would it be before marriage commissioners could provide shopping-lists to their supervisors?

Just tick the appropriate squares: “Exclusions: a) same-sex marriages: b) interracial marriages; c) Catholic-Protestant marriages; d) Other__. “

And why limit the free choice to public employees? City rental agencies could collect similar information from anxious landlords and route requests for accommodation accordingly. Ditto store clerks, and the staff of lunch counters.

Nope. Won’t wash.

We shouldn’t accommodate idiosyncratic personal beliefs in the public square. We don’t let Jehovah’s Witness doctors refuse to give blood transfusions, or vegetarians working for McDonalds refuse to flip hamburgers. No way Muslim taxi-drivers should be free to refuse blind passengers with guide dogs.

Why, then, should we permit anyone opposed to same sex marriage to be exempted from part of their job, and yet paid out of taxpayer dollars? Let them find jobs more in sync with their beliefs.

.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... z1Axi8IEVM]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:31 pm
 


I agree. You can choose with whom you live and spend your free time with, but you do your job as you are paid to do. Don't wanna? Then you are not doing your job.
Would be nice if we could all pick and choose what we wanted to do, instead of what has to be done...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:30 pm
 


If he wants to object on religous or moral grounds he should have become a priest or minister, otherwise, it's now the law and he's working for the Gov't so, the git should just get on with it and leave the whinning to plaintiffs that the Judges will have to listen to when these lucky couples end up like most of society and get divorced.


Besides everybody deserves to be miserable. :lol:


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1681
PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:41 pm
 


Or he can become a Muslim and then argue it on religious grounds, he will have a better shot at winning if he isn't Christian


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:42 pm
 


KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:
Or he can become a Muslim and then argue it on religious grounds, he will have a better shot at winning if he isn't Christian


Yeah.. hahahahahaha... or not. :roll:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21533
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:17 am
 


KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:
Or he can become a Muslim and then argue it on religious grounds, he will have a better shot at winning if he isn't Christian


ROTFL


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.