Opposition to same sex marriage ruling

[kenny]

I started a new thread so I wouldn't cast a shadow over the one celebrating the recent landmark civil rights ruling.

Folks, don't directly talk about politics or religion or this thread will go POOF too.
This thread is about the social shift and the new social conflict ... government employees refusing to do their job and citizens not getting a service the US Supreme Court has ruled legal.

SNIP:
"Texas is doubling down on the fight against Friday's ruling by the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. On Sunday, state attorney general Ken Paxton issued a statement calling the SCOTUS ruling "lawless" and declaring that county clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing religious objections."
Source: http://mashable.com/2015/06/28/texas-block-same-sex-marriage/

IMO those county clerk employees are free to follow their conscience by finding employment elsewhere or following their conscience to a jail cell.
I have to follow lots of laws I don't like.
I don't like stopping at stop signs at empty intersections, but it's the law.
It's called putting selfishness aside to exist in a society.

More: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a36057/gay-marriage-texas/

 

[Madam Bijoux]

Those opposed to same sex marriages might be much happier if they paid more attention to their own relationships and less attention to other people's marriages.

 

[Matata]

They need to be fired for nonperformance of their jobs. Same with pharmacists who refuse to prescribe/dispense certain drugs and with physicians who refuse to provide certain services when it conflicts with their beliefs. I don't know what else to say. It's difficult to discuss social conflicts without bringing up forbidden topics since the majority of the conflicts are rooted in those topics.

 

[Matata]

And any state refusing to uphold federal law should lose all federal funding.

 

[Arcadian]

Well they do have pharmacists that won't give women birth control, because it goes against their belief (which IMO why be a pharmacist at that point but well...you know...)

I also won't get political but I will say that the US of A is rather bass ackwards in many areas. A person that can't do their secular job because it violates their religious belief should not be in that job. It doesn't matter what job it is frankly because they're stepping on someone else's constitutional right. Its not even just about marriage equality either, but other areas too; reproductive, gun rights, the list goes on.

 

[partgypsy]

They need to be fired for nonperformance of their jobs. Same with pharmacists who refuse to prescribe/dispense certain drugs and with physicians who refuse to provide certain services when it conflicts with their beliefs. I don't know what else to say. It's difficult to discuss social conflicts without bringing up forbidden topics since the majority of the conflicts are rooted in those topics.

Ditto. I have strong feelings about this. If you can't perform your job duties, please quit.

 

[missy]

They need to be fired for nonperformance of their jobs. Same with pharmacists who refuse to prescribe/dispense certain drugs and with physicians who refuse to provide certain services when it conflicts with their beliefs. I don't know what else to say. It's difficult to discuss social conflicts without bringing up forbidden topics since the majority of the conflicts are rooted in those topics.

Ditto. I have strong feelings about this. If you can't perform your job duties, please quit.

Thritto. This makes my blood boil. I wish we could really get into a deeper discussion and be able to fully discuss all topics but since we cannot I will just agree and add that though I am not a violent person this kind of thing makes me want to do bodily harm to people hiding behind "religion".

 

[missy]

Those opposed to same sex marriages might be much happier if they paid more attention to their own relationships and less attention to other people's marriages.

And I will ditto this 100%. Why can't people just be happy and manage their own life and stop looking over at what others do that just don't affect them. Stop being a busybody and what is that saying when you are policing what others do? Stop that and let people live in peace and enjoy their lives and marry who they want to. This makes me angry too because they (the generic straight they) have the right to marry so why can't they let everyone have that right. Who died and made them boss of what others can and cannot do with their own life. I know I am not saying this as elegantly as I want to but I am fuming mad about others not wanting everyone to have the same rights as they do.

 

[Calliecake]

Those opposed to same sex marriages might be much happier if they paid more attention to their own relationships and less attention to other people's marriages.

And I will ditto this 100%. Why can't people just be happy and manage their own life and stop looking over at what others do that just don't affect them. Stop being a busybody and what is that saying when you are policing what others do? Stop that and let people live in peace and enjoy their lives and marry who they want to. This makes me angry too because they (the generic straight they) have the right to marry so why can't they let everyone have that right. Who died and made them boss of what others can and cannot do with their own life. I know I am not saying this as elegantly as I want to but I am fuming mad about others not wanting everyone to have the same rights as they do.

I could not agree more with everything you have said Missy, Matata and Madam Bijoux!

 

[kenny]

There's backlash against Facebook offering an 'app' that overlays a rainbow flag over one's profile pic.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33313807


SNIP
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced the rainbow flag tool by changing his own profile pic.

It was wildly popular, but not everybody likes Facebook's pro-gay marriage photo filter - it's prompted a backlash in Russia and across the Arab world.

If you went on Facebook over the weekend you may have seen friends' profile pictures turned multi-coloured. Maybe you even tinted your own pic. A rainbow filter tool was introduced by the company after last week's landmark Supreme Court decision which cleared the way for same-sex marriage across the US. But in some areas of the world the response to the initiative was less than enthusiastic - and even downright hostile.

In Russia, several filters were created which splash the colours of national flags rather than rainbow banners across a picture. One such app has been downloaded more than 4,000 times. "Our response to the rainbow world ‪#‏Proudtoberussian," said one typical comment by Moscow resident Elena Starkova.

Russia has controversial laws which ban providing information about homosexuality to people under age 18, and a recent poll showed that more than 80% of Russians oppose legalising same-sex marriage.

Despite this, some Russians backlashed against the backlash. Anna Koterlnikova, who had changed her profile pic to a rainbow flag, commented: "Sorry! I'm straight and Russian but I'm not a homophobe!"

In the Middle East, many social media users also came out strongly against the rainbow flag. "It's a message that it hurts me," said Egyptian Twitter user Sharif Najm, while Rami Isa from Syria tweeted: "Damn you and your marriage. You have distorted our innocent childhood [symbol], we used to like the rainbow." Ahmad Abd-Rabbuh, an Egyptian political science professor, said that gay marriage "is not in harmony with society and culture."
"I know that I will make many of my friends angry," he commented.

In Egypt, around 2,000 tweets mentioned the rainbow motif, most of them critical. Some users even went so far as to sarcastically blame a weekend storm on users who turned their profile pics multi-coloured. But not all reaction was negative. Egyptian TV presenter Muna Iraqi commented: "[I support people's] right to live and love freely, without any persecution."

Of course, it also should be noted that same-sex marriage is by no means universally popular in the US - about two-fifths of Americans oppose it, according to the Pew Research Center.

"I'm 100% against gay marriage," tweeted Joshua Taipale. "I have gay friends and they're great ppl; it's not personal. But U.S. can't decide. Should be state-by-state."

 

[kenny]

IMO, other countries getting angry about what the US (and 20 other countries) has done is great. Excellent.
Anger is the first step and it generates discussion.
Silence and fear is our enemy and discussion and visibility is our friend.

The anger will begin/continue a dialog in those countries that will ultimately lead to equality.
Not soon, but ultimately.

They are angry because they are insecure regarding their views.
They realize they are on shaky ground.
Subconsciously they know superior/inferior systems are wrong.

Equality is moral and inevitable.
Unequal systems/governments are running scared.

 

[telephone89]

I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.

I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.

Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.

 

[ame]

They need to be fired for nonperformance of their jobs. Same with pharmacists who refuse to prescribe/dispense certain drugs and with physicians who refuse to provide certain services when it conflicts with their beliefs. I don't know what else to say. It's difficult to discuss social conflicts without bringing up forbidden topics since the majority of the conflicts are rooted in those topics.

I am sick to DEATH of this "attack on christianity" and "attack on religious freedoms" bullshit. Your beliefs are not under attack you delusional nitwits.

 

[kenny]

ame, that might get this thread shut down.

Here in Fantasyland, where only faux niceness is permitted, we must restrict ourselves to nuance, metaphor and understatement.

 

[yssie]

Well, let me give ame's post (and the many others before it!) a very heartfelt "+1" before that happens, then!

 

[Tekate]

oh yeah.

We are hired to do a job, so if there is refusal to supply a marriage license and the law states ALL Americans are equal then the employee should be forthwith fired. I always find it interesting when I read about pharmacists 'refuse' to fill BC pills,.. that is NOT their job, their job is to dispense drugs correctly, on time, and supply verbal support for those who cannot understand their danged scripts. Let's hope that employees of states are intelligent enough to bypass regressive beliefs and perform their jobs.

ame, that might get this thread shut down.

Here in Fantasyland, where only faux niceness is permitted, we must restrict ourselves to nuance, metaphor and understatement.

 

[Imdanny]

oh yeah.

We are hired to do a job, so if there is refusal to supply a marriage license and the law states ALL Americans are equal then the employee should be forthwith fired. I always find it interesting when I read about pharmacists 'refuse' to fill BC pills,.. that is NOT their job, their job is to dispense drugs correctly, on time, and supply verbal support for those who cannot understand their danged scripts. Let's hope that employees of states are intelligent enough to bypass regressive beliefs and perform their jobs.

ame, that might get this thread shut down.

Here in Fantasyland, where only faux niceness is permitted, we must restrict ourselves to nuance, metaphor and understatement.

Many pharmacists refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication. and anxiety medication and their employers support them 100%. They are not doctors! They are out of control. What egos. What presumption. What rudeness.

 

[ame]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arkansas-county-clerk-to-resign-over-same-sex-marriage/

Don't let the door hitcha, lady!

 

[ame]

ame, that might get this thread shut down.

Here in Fantasyland, where only faux niceness is permitted, we must restrict ourselves to nuance, metaphor and understatement.

Well, let me give ame's post (and the many others before it!) a very heartfelt "+1" before that happens, then!

I've never been one to be subtle, now have I.

 

[missy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arkansas-county-clerk-to-resign-over-same-sex-marriage/

Don't let the door hitcha, lady!

HA, you're much nicer than I am ame. I say let the door hit her and hit her hard.

 

[ame]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arkansas-county-clerk-to-resign-over-same-sex-marriage/

Don't let the door hitcha, lady!

HA, you're much nicer than I am ame. I say let the door hit her and hit her hard.

Well, that's what I really think and say off the board. lol

 

[iLander]

Many pharmacists refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication. and anxiety medication and their employers support them 100%. They are not doctors! They are out of control. What egos. What presumption. What rudeness.

If you ever, Ever, EVER run into this at a national chain (CVS, Target, Walgreens, Costco, etc), you need to let the chain know. Google Vice President of Pharmacy + chain name and then send an email through their corporate website (but specifically addressed to the VP) explaining what happened. Include your contact info, because they will follow up with you. Refusing pharmacy service is so illegal, and SOOO against corporate policy, it's not even funny. There will be one less pharmacist, very quickly.

If it's a small mom and pop pharmacy, move your business. And encourage everyone else you know to move their business.

 

[iLander]

A question on the point of law; how come it wasn't okay if private businesses continued to segregate after desegregation?

No one, public or private, could be segregated anymore, period.

Was the decision written with some kind of line allowing refusal?

 

[liaerfbv]

I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.

I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.

Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.

We were talking about this at work yesterday, and though I 100% support the ruling, I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSMs if it goes against their teachings. It's interesting to see how this will be handled, particularly with the federal tax-exempt status afforded to most churches.

 

[missy]

I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.

I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.

Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.

We were talking about this at work yesterday, and though I 100% support the ruling, I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSMs if it goes against their teachings. It's interesting to see how this will be handled, particularly with the federal tax-exempt status afforded to most churches.

If it were me I wouldn't want any church that doesn't support me and my whole way of life marrying me anyway yanno? I mean why would one follow a church that doesn't support your whole way and meaning of life? But that's me and it is a personal decision for all but I for one wouldn't want any church that doesn't support me and my life to perform a wedding ceremony for me and my loved one in any case.

 

[liaerfbv]

Missy, I totally agree with you - but I assume there are some gay Americans who are religious and want to be married in a church. It truly is a difficult question.

 

[Calliecake]

I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.

I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.

Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.

We were talking about this at work yesterday, and though I 100% support the ruling, I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSMs if it goes against their teachings. It's interesting to see how this will be handled, particularly with the federal tax-exempt status afforded to most churches.

If it were me I wouldn't want any church that doesn't support me and my whole way of life marrying me anyway yanno? I mean why would one follow a church that doesn't support your whole way and meaning of life? But that's me and it is a personal decision for all but I for one wouldn't want any church that doesn't support me and my life to perform a wedding ceremony for me and my loved one in any case.

I couldn't agree more Missy. When my BIL and SIL got married the church she attended refused to marry them. They were married elsewhere and when their daughter was born they chose to have her baptized in the church that refused to marry them. This church told them they would baptize their child and would not hold the sins of the parents against the child. I never understood why considering this church refused to see them as a married couple and their comment would have sent me running to the church they were married in, where they were accepted and welcomed.

 

[chemgirl]

I really loved seeing all of the "Time to move to Canada" tweets. Talk about ignorance. I don't think they would like it much here.

Some churches did make a fuss back when gay marriage was first legalized. Now it's just seen as a normal thing and there are some churches that will perform same sex marriage ceremonies and some that won't. A few churches in my city fly pride flags and it's just a known thing that anyone is welcome to get married there. I could see it being an issue if someone had a strong tie to a particular church, but on general it's easy to find somewhere accepting.

It's been 10 years, but now same sex marriage is a normal thing. The new school curriculum even includes 2 moms and 2 dads when discussing types of families.

Everyone just need to settle down and let people live their lives.

 

[msop04]

oh yeah.

We are hired to do a job, so if there is refusal to supply a marriage license and the law states ALL Americans are equal then the employee should be forthwith fired. I always find it interesting when I read about pharmacists 'refuse' to fill BC pills,.. that is NOT their job, their job is to dispense drugs correctly, on time, and supply verbal support for those who cannot understand their danged scripts. Let's hope that employees of states are intelligent enough to bypass regressive beliefs and perform their jobs.

ame, that might get this thread shut down.

Here in Fantasyland, where only faux niceness is permitted, we must restrict ourselves to nuance, metaphor and understatement.

Many pharmacists refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication. and anxiety medication and their employers support them 100%. They are not doctors! They are out of control. What egos. What presumption. What rudeness.

Ummm... excuse me, Imdanny. When you can hang your PharmD on the wall (which, by the way, is a Doctorate of Pharmacy) and tell me why you're constantly worried the DEA or state board is going to reprimand you or, heaven forbid, take your license away, you can attempt to make these wild accusations.

Pharmacists get it from both ends (MDs are beginning to get it as well, for that matter). The DEA gripes when we fill too many controlled substances (like we can control what the patient brings in), and we get it from the public/media when we can't/won't fill their controls due to DEA restriction and/or questions with the actual prescription. Most pharmacists don't care what you come in with -- we just do our jobs and fill each script in a safe/correct/timely manner... I can assure you. We don't want all the drama, but our licenses are held to a certain standard and we can't just ignore everything -- we are held accountable for EVERYTHING these days... The only control we have is to not fill. Federal and state pharmacy law states that a pharmacist can refuse to fill ANY script for WHATEVER reason. This is to protect us and YOU.

Pharmacists' employers support them because they KNOW the craziness that goes on... they also know that the people who get pissed off that their script was refused would be the same ones who ended up trying to sue the pharmacist/pharmacy when they hurt themselves because they took too much of their medication because "that dumb pharmacist filled it early" and they had it in their possession to take (West Virginia, anyone??)... Sheesh! I don't know about anyone else, but I doubt someone else is going to pay my bills and student loans when my license is taken away and I can't practice...

I'm a pharmacist and worked extremely hard to earn that license. I have been practicing for over 12 years. I am a doctor, and I can pretty much guarantee that fellow pharmacists have saved many lives by correcting/refusing to fill incorrect and/or illegitimate scripts written by these "all-knowing" physicians. I'm not bashing MDs at all -- we are a team in health care. If you consider it "ego" to fill scripts in a safe, correct, and timely manner, then so be it. We're saving the a$$es of MDs on a DAILY basis -- this is what the public doesn't understand. We're so "out of control" like that -- be thankful.

By the way, any/every script written by a physician doesn't make it "legitimate" -- we see tons of "legitimate" scripts written by a handful of docs for the same patient. Who knew a patient could need pain meds or controls from 4 different docs?? ...probably not the docs. Once informed, the prescribers almost always says, "that's no longer good from me -- do not fill." "What an ego that pharmacist has??!! I mean, all 4 were legit scripts before he stuck his nose in my business, right? Why can't he just do his job and put pills in a bottle??!!"

The DEA would be all over that. We don't seek out reasons to refuse to fill, but it's hard to ignore blatant abuse -- by doctor or patient.

Sorry for the threadjack, but I felt like I needed to defend my profession... as usual.

 

[msop04]

Many pharmacists refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication. and anxiety medication and their employers support them 100%. They are not doctors! They are out of control. What egos. What presumption. What rudeness.

If you ever, Ever, EVER run into this at a national chain (CVS, Target, Walgreens, Costco, etc), you need to let the chain know. Google Vice President of Pharmacy + chain name and then send an email through their corporate website (but specifically addressed to the VP) explaining what happened. Include your contact info, because they will follow up with you. Refusing pharmacy service is so illegal, and SOOO against corporate policy, it's not even funny. There will be one less pharmacist, very quickly.

If it's a small mom and pop pharmacy, move your business. And encourage everyone else you know to move their business.

One less pharmacist for that company and one more that still has a license. Refusal to fill due to laziness is one thing, but that is very rarely the case. We just don't have the time for that kind of thing, nor do we have time to single out people for no reason.

Corporations care about MONEY, not the health and well-being of their customers. If you think they do, then you are sadly mistaken.

I have a close friend who was fired over "refusing to fill" several pain meds for a patient with a history of abuse (at least from what was documented at his pharmacy and at the pt's many doctor's offices). The scripts in question were from a "pill mill" clinic that is now out of business and the MD is in jail. After his termination, the DEA decided several area pharmacies AND pharmacists had to pay large fines for filling scripts from said clinic.

Needless to say, she was offered many apologies and her job back by the corporation that terminated her -- LIKE SHE'D WANT TO WORK FOR THAT COMPANY NOW! It's all about the almighty dollar for these big-box corporations. I won't name this company out of respect for her because she agreed to not discuss the matter when they had to pay her and her attorney almost $600,000 for wrongful termination and damages. It would have been in the company's best interest to do a little investigation into said "refusal to fill", but they were so worried about someone complaining to the media... In health care, the customer is NOT always right. Period.