Skip to main content

View Diary: Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder freezes when asked about LGBT rights (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Pfft! (5+ / 0-)
    Q:  is being gay a good reason to be fired?

    Snyder: Well again, that's a broad statement,

    No, no it isn't.  It's a very specific, yes or no question with a very simple answer.  OMG, the squirming!  It'd be hilarious if this jerk weren't the governor with actual power over people's lives.

    BTW, Gov. Snyder?  The answer is no.  Being gay is not a good reason to be fired.  It's a shitty-ass, bigoted reason for being fired. See? That wasn't so hard.

    "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

    by middleagedhousewife on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 04:34:55 PM PDT

    •  Actually, it is broad. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alwaysquestion, VClib

      In most contexts, no it's not a good reason to be fired.  

      However, many of the stories here and elsewhere about people being fired for being gay when they are working for a religious employer, and in a position where part of their job is conveying the religious views of that employer (such as teachers in a Catholic school).  

      In that case, the religious institution also has the constitutionally-protected right to the free exercise of their religion, even if others vehemently disagree with those religious views.  In those cases, a religious institution may have a "good reason" (a constitutional right is always a "good reason") for firing someone from a position where they are charged with transmitted religious teachings when that person openly violates the teachings the person is supposed to be transmitting.  

      So, as I said, in most contexts, one's sexual orientation is not a "good reason" to be hired or fired.  In those narrow circumstances where there are First Amendment considerations, it may be.  

      •  And this is why religion gets on people's (0+ / 0-)

        radar as something bad.  If religion wouldn't discriminate when they poke their heads into anything outside of their Sunday service, few would take notice and go on the offensive.

        I don't see how religion should be protected to discriminate.  It just never made sense.  Guess that is why so many people are walking away.

        1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

        by alwaysquestion on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 06:49:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Few religions are only about "Sunday Service" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alwaysquestion, VClib

          and it's kind of ridiculous to expect religious people to ignore their religious teachings outside of "Sunday Service."  

          The Constitution protects the Free Exercise of religion -- it's right there in the First Amendment.  And I completely support that.  I differentiate it using the law to impose one religious view on others -- that I oppose.  But it works both ways.  If Catholics can't impose their views of marriage on you, you can't impose your views of marriage on them.  The law should be neutral, leaving those views up to individuals.  

          The Constitution, by the way, only prohibits GOVERNMENT from discriminating.  

          •  Religion is individual, not universal. (0+ / 0-)

            The laws in this nation need to change where religion is concerned.  Religious institutions should not be able to restrict choice for others, no matter the setting.  
            Schools, business, whatever.  No one need ever know what others choose for themselves.  There shouldn't be an institution allowed on U.S. soil that would offer fewer rights than our laws allow.

            Again, those restrictions may be the reason many are walking away from religion: http://religions.pewforum.org/...

            Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.
            AND
            While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic. These losses would have been even more pronounced were it not for the offsetting impact of immigration.
            Have to wonder how long churches will last in the U.S..  It appears young people are deciding not to feed the beast.

            1. What does it mean? 2. And then what?

            by alwaysquestion on Thu Oct 24, 2013 at 08:07:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion (0+ / 0-)

            The Catholics know this better than perhaps any other religious denomination, because the Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce.  So there are plenty of Catholics who the Church considers married to one person while civil law considers them divorced from that person and remarried to another person.

            So no, whenever you hear a Catholic going on about how government can't impose same-sex marriage on them, it's just straight bullshit, a cover for homophobia.  A lot of Americans are confused about the difference between a religious marriage and a civil marriage, but not Catholics because they have been dealing with that issue for centuries.  Nobody is talking about forcing the Catholic Church to conduct same-sex marriages themselves - that would be a different kettle of fish.

            The Catholic Church has no problem dealing with divorced-and-remarried heterosexual Catholics, nor with straight couples who for whatever reason were not married in the Catholic Church - "married in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of God" and deal accordingly - but applies a different standard to gay couples.  Even though it's EXACTLY the same.  Nobody is telling them they have to recognize a gay marriage in the religious sense, only in the legal sense, just as they do for straight couples.

            •  Further note on the EXACTLY the same thing (0+ / 0-)

              should someone note that homosexuality is considered a sin.  A divorced-and-remarried Catholic is committing adultery in the Church's eyes, and adultery is also a sin.  A Ten Commandments sin.

              And a married couple who wasn't married in the church is having sex out of wedlock so far as the Catholic Church is concerned, because they're not married in the eyes of God.  Also a sin.

              But when was the last time you heard about a heterosexual legally-but-not-religiously-married Catholic getting fired for having a marriage that is not recognized by the Catholic Church?

              That's how you know the claims that it's their religion are bullshit.  The Church has its views about which straight couples are married, but it doesn't try to impose those views on civil law.  They're not bothered by how you can have a couple be religiously married but not legally married or vice versa.  Only when it comes to married gay couples do they suddenly have an issue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site