She should not do the job if she objects to same sex marriage, no one is forcing her to, I would sack her for refusing to do her job! 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️🤐🤬😖🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
In healthcare, we are taught to recognize our own biases and separate our personal beliefs from the responsibility/duties we have to provide care that is consistent with professional practice standards and to respect the wishes/desires OF THE PATIENT as part of the healthcare team. The PROFESSIONAL obligation is to ADVOCATE on behalf of THE PATIENT. IF you cannot make that personal separation, professional ethical standards REQUIRE you to report your inability to do so to a supervisor for YOUR reassignment. The PATIENT’S CARE is the PRIORITY.
It’s not complex. You just need to understand and respect personal boundaries.
YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR SOMEONE ELSE BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS.
I hear you loud and clear. I've worked in the government and nonprofit sector. My job was never to determine who was worthy, only who was eligible. And when they appeared not to be eligible, it was my job to tell them why and, sometimes, what they needed to do to become eligible. Never, however, was it my job to find them worthy of the program.
No one forced Kim Davis to take the job. Political beliefs, right or left do not belong in the government offices. Religion or theology beliefs do not belong in a government office. Either do the job per the law, (no bias, no prejudice, no political personal beliefs) or find a different position or better yet work for your church or mosque. Simple!
The personal element of her petition is incredibly alarming. What are petitioners to do if they are refused service by public officials based on religious beliefs? And this is not far from the ability to refuse service "just because" while hiding behind some imagined shield "I have a 'religious objection' to allowing certain families to send kids to school," for example ... Perhaps the Court will deny hearing any of it.
Let's hope the Court recognizes how dangerous this could be. Even a highly conservative court should realize that if they permit this, it goes both ways, which means those on a more liberal side could refuse to do something due to their beliefs.... like license their firearm.
She should not do the job if she objects to same sex marriage, no one is forcing her to, I would sack her for refusing to do her job! 🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️🤐🤬😖🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
This woman is dangerous to us all!
In healthcare, we are taught to recognize our own biases and separate our personal beliefs from the responsibility/duties we have to provide care that is consistent with professional practice standards and to respect the wishes/desires OF THE PATIENT as part of the healthcare team. The PROFESSIONAL obligation is to ADVOCATE on behalf of THE PATIENT. IF you cannot make that personal separation, professional ethical standards REQUIRE you to report your inability to do so to a supervisor for YOUR reassignment. The PATIENT’S CARE is the PRIORITY.
It’s not complex. You just need to understand and respect personal boundaries.
YOU DON’T GET TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR SOMEONE ELSE BASED ON YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS.
Do you see the problem here?
I hear you loud and clear. I've worked in the government and nonprofit sector. My job was never to determine who was worthy, only who was eligible. And when they appeared not to be eligible, it was my job to tell them why and, sometimes, what they needed to do to become eligible. Never, however, was it my job to find them worthy of the program.
No one forced Kim Davis to take the job. Political beliefs, right or left do not belong in the government offices. Religion or theology beliefs do not belong in a government office. Either do the job per the law, (no bias, no prejudice, no political personal beliefs) or find a different position or better yet work for your church or mosque. Simple!
The personal element of her petition is incredibly alarming. What are petitioners to do if they are refused service by public officials based on religious beliefs? And this is not far from the ability to refuse service "just because" while hiding behind some imagined shield "I have a 'religious objection' to allowing certain families to send kids to school," for example ... Perhaps the Court will deny hearing any of it.
Let's hope the Court recognizes how dangerous this could be. Even a highly conservative court should realize that if they permit this, it goes both ways, which means those on a more liberal side could refuse to do something due to their beliefs.... like license their firearm.
"Can a public official refuse to perform the core duties of their job and block others from doing so, simply by citing religious belief?"
Fuck no !!!!