How religious traditionalists will be forced to attend same-sex marriages

By -
Or lose their jobs:

My friend Jim Henley recently wrote (I quote from memory, but I am pretty sure Jim will say I got him essentially right here): "Come on, Gene, no one is forcing traditional Christians to attend same-sex marriages."

Not quite yet, but it is coming very soon. Here's how it will work:

Many company employees are typically invited to the wedding when someone in a company, particularly someone prominent in a company, gets married. What will happen when this is a same-sex couple?

A traditional Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, may be able to opt out of attending one of these ceremonies by being "sick," or something of the sort. But if they do this a couple of times, they will get called to HR. If they let slip that they could not attend, because they don't believe in SSM, they will be fired for creating a "hostile work environment."

A prediction: the first instance of this happening will occur within the next year. Then it will become more and more common.

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell4:23 PM

    Okay, that is plausible and I would not mind laws against that. That is an instance of control, like when an employer tries to control the actions of an employee outside of work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. orc1:18 PM

    Huh, the whole "your corporate masters force you to attend their weddings" thing is an interesting hypothetical. Has this ever happened, or are you extrapolating from the odious team building retreats that companies try to force their employees to attend?

    And, also I've got to question "... if they do this a couple of times..." -- a company that (a) would force employees to attend executive commitment ceremonies and (b) has enough gay/bi executives to make executive suite SSM marriages a commonplace thing would have a screamingly queer workplace culture even in a state that discriminates against them. A self-proclaimed traditional Jew/Jewish heretic would find such a workplace to be intolerable even before the first wedding announcement came out.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more