All these folks posting “[x] hates [y]; still does her job” memes: do you realize humanity has executed people who “just did their job”? Could it be that you really just want a person to do their job if they agree with your beliefs, but want them to abstain when they disagree? You are vilifying a practice that you need to have available when someone asks you to perform a service which you have a moral objection to.
“We need you to dump this poison into the water.” “I have a moral objection to that.” “Just do your job.”
…or: “We need you to collect this metadata on American citizens.”
“I have a moral objection to this.”
“Just do your job.”
Now, we should totally be having a discussion on whether or not we agree with this person’s morals, but the idea (generally) of conscientious objection should never be questioned.
More discussion is on Facebook.
So, the answer isn’t quit your job?
And then turn them in as criminals or start a movement against them or blow the whistle or tell their boss to find out if the company agrees or…get fired for not doing it and tell employers at interviews why you were fired?
What you’re saying is that “just do your job” is rude? Wrong? We (and their employers) shouldn’t expect someone to do their job? If I hire you, and you don’t do it, I should fire you and hire someone else. The slogan isn’t because she has a conscientious objection or moral code, the point is that she refuses to do her job. At which point she should say I’m not going to do that, and leave. Which in essence is what happened isn’t it? I mean she got fired right?
Of course, to be fair her “job”, depending on the religion, is actually to support, fight, convince, and spread her faith above all else…So, her calling to God as a job probably is the exact reason not to quit..bc she is preforming her job by imposing her beliefs…so…guess it just depends on what you feel is your job. 😕
You definitely shouldn’t be paid for work you’re not performing (although, I think there are folks that would disagree with that), but civil disobedience is as valid as anything else.
I’m using “civil” here because it’s a nonviolent protest that is using the court system as a means of communication.
She went to jail for a few days (contempt of court), but the only people who can actually fire a county clerk in Kentucky is a session of the state legislature or (obviously) the voters when the next election comes around.
This might be like me taking a job with at an oil rig, then calling up the media and refusing to perform my job to protest the fossil fuel industry. …or like Ron Swanson taking a job in the Parks department to do his part in bringing down the government.
“just do your job” isn’t about her opinion not being valid. Yes, obviously we think she’s stupid to hold a government job while she knew that her beliefs would prevent her from separating church and state. I’m sure this isn’t the first time her beliefs have conflicted with her job.
When you AGREED to the job, you said you’d hold the laws above. The laws change too much for you, sure, say you think they’re stupid and leave. It’s a meme, man. It isn’t eloquent. Sure, there are people in history who’ve refused to do their job and been on the ‘popular’ side…but the difference is that we aren’t going to murder her because she didn’t do her job. Except that no one can get THEIR civil right to be married if she stays there. So, if people want to be angry that she won’t do her job – that’s their right to.
I was about to post basically the same thing. I’m glad I scrolled up to read. This isn’t a dystopian society where we’ll kill her if she quits… she should quit if her moral objection prevents her from performing her job.
Marc, I’m going to need you to step into my office.
This is a very interesting point you bring up. It has me thinking. Thank you for posting!
I don’t limit it to things I agree with. I don’t agree that the fur industry should exist in this day and age. If you work on a mink farm, though, I think you should be killing those minks, or you should quit.
My primary issue is not that she felt a specific aspect of her job was objectionable- it is that she wouldn’t let anyone else do that part in substitution for her, and is still attempting to prevent anyone from doing it. That, coupled with the fact that the objectionable task in question is completely legal and aboveboard, lose her a lot of her moral high ground to protest.
To address your examples: The person ordered to dump waste has an obligation to whistle blow if the dumping is illegal. If the conduct has been deemed “legal” but you find it objectionable (like collecting metadata) you can publicize it and attempt to drum up public outrage against it. Those things might cost the employee the job, though.
Finally, she’s a government employee working with the public. Aside from any concerns about doing your job or freedom of religion, the idea that someone would seek state-backed power and then use it to block people from obtaining legal government services is objectionable in and of itself.
I have exactly the same thinking that you had, Luke. What I heard today (on NPR, not exactly biased in her favor) is that this clerk’s name is on all of the marriage licenses, even the ones that her deputies complete. I’ve never possessed a marriage license, but it’s my understanding that’s not a universal thing. There’s a lot to disagree with, but I don’t find it disagreeable for someone to take control of their name and reputation.
True- at that point you just get into the same loop that ultimately, it’s her job. She may argue that issuing gay marriage licenses wasn’t part of the job when she took it, but that’s missing the forest for the trees- a county clerk’s job is to verify that people qualify for the various licenses and permits, then issue them. She’s free to disapprove, just as a building inspector is free to think your house is ugly as hell, but not to refuse a legal service you qualify for.
As far as civil disobedience goes, remember that some of the originators of the modern movement (King and Ghandi) were imprisoned. It’s a strategy, one of using calculated nonviolent offenses in an attempt to keep public support and maintain moral high ground. Just because it’s “civil” doesn’t mean it’s free from consequences, even legal ones- I think that’s a mistake many people today make.
Right! She belongs in jail for sure. There’s no argument there.
And this is just another reason the government should have no right to “license” marriage. Their only business is in enforcing the contractual partnership that is arranged by any set of consenting adults.