In a society where “anything goes”, the absurd is not far behind.

It seems to me that the private sector has been much more accepting of people like Stanton. The company I work for, a large defense contractor, has Hispanic, Black, Pacific Islander, and Native American groups, They also have a GBLT (gay, bisexual, lesbian, and transgendered) group. Most companies in the private sector do. I wonder why the public/federal world is behind the curve on this. I can assure you that companies don’t consider this “absurd”.

I think in the not-too-distant future the public sector will embrace diversity to the extent the private sector has. It’s inevitable. Having been in both worlds (retired military and now 11 years in industry), I prefer the private sector. In general, I think the people are better.

OffiicalBeachBum - 23 March 2007 05:41 PM

Under the 1993 Federal Law. titled “Restoration of Religious Freedom act” Civil rights are granted.

I have the right to get a blood transfusion or just pray for my healing and still keep my government job even if a employer’s religion or moral belief is such that claims it would make me unfit.

They have the right to their religion and I have a right to mine.

The employer is forbidden by law to discriminate upon my choice of medical treatment based on my faith. Stanton has civil rights based upon that law the right to undergo a procedure that in his faith is a medical treatment.

Stanton has as much right as anyone to claim his faith and choice of medical treatment.

That law flies in the face of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

By passing a law prohibiting an employer from selecting his employees based on the employers faith is a violation of the free exercise of that employer’s religion.  It is unConstitutional.  You’re still wrong on both counts.  The only thing you’re right about, is that Congress and the President routinely violate the Constitution that they make an oath to uphold.

If that 1993 federal law were so flagrantly in violation of the “establishment clause”, you’d think it would have been challenged by now and be heard before the SCOTUS. However, the “establishment clause” was put into the Bill of Rights to prevent a state religion (cf. the Anglican Church) that the Founders didn’t want to see in the new country.

It’s not a violation of the establishment clause, it’s a violation of the plain text of the Constitution; anyone can see it.  And the last institution I trust to accurately interpret the Constitution is the Supreme Court.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

My point for those of you that misinterpreted.

Steve has a right to act in accord with his personal religion.
The government doesn’t have A personal religion.

The government should not and does not have A religion and therefore can not uphold one religion over another.

How quickly we would call foul if:

Your government supervisors want to fire you for eating shrimp or pork or steak because they personally feel for religious reasons it is moral wrong ?

It’s not the government’s place to impose that you eat your vegetables, or get fired.

If your government supervisors were say Jehovah’s Witness. They fired you because you got a blood transfusion.

The gov. supervisors have valid moral reasons that you will no longer be able to do your job because it involves interacting with people but your “soul must be cut off from his people” according to those supervisors belief system. You are immoral and unfit because you got blood.

Most people would say that you getting canned for a corrective medical transfusion procedure was unfair and wrong.

Steve getting canned for having a corrective medical transgender procedure is just as unfair and wrong.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

My apology to Jehovah’s Witness and Vegans. I am not implying that you would be so dogmatic as to fire someone that didn’t hold your opinion.

I understood what you were saying the first time you said it, and this was my response then:

The religious freedom described in the First Amendment applies to the establishment of a national church.  The Founders never contemplated religion not playing a role in society and government and they even encouraged it.  Several said it would be the death of the nation if we ever abandoned it.  No religion is trying to remove Stanton from his job, the people and their individual beliefs are.  No one has a right to a job public or private.

The representatives of the people are responding to the public outcry against Stanton.

Micah Burnett - 01 April 2007 08:24 PM

It’s not a violation of the establishment clause, it’s a violation of the plain text of the Constitution; anyone can see it.  And the last institution I trust to accurately interpret the Constitution is the Supreme Court.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In constitutional circles, the term “establishment clause” means the First Amendment; guess you didn’t know that. Secondly, it is the duty of the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. If not them, then who do you suggest?

The First Amendment has many more clauses than the establishment clause.  You’re right, the Supreme Court is the body that is supposed to faithfully interpret the Constitution, however they have long since abandoned that responsibility and are using powers that are not granted to them to change it.  Ultimately, in a self-governing society, the people must know what their Constitution means, and demand that their leaders follow it; otherwise, we might as well have a king.

Micah Burnett - 02 April 2007 12:50 PM

The First Amendment has many more clauses than the establishment clause.  You’re right, the Supreme Court is the body that is supposed to faithfully interpret the Constitution, however they have long since abandoned that responsibility and are using powers that are not granted to them to change it.  Ultimately, in a self-governing society, the people must know what their Constitution means, and demand that their leaders follow it; otherwise, we might as well have a king.

I don’t think “abandoned” is the right word; they’re still interpretting. Maybe it’s whether or not it’s “faithful” to the original intent could be argued.

With each passing year, we get closer and closer to haveing a King again. One power the Founders didn’t want the President to have was the ability to take the nation to war. That was supposed to be the Congress.

But we’re getting WAY off topic here.

We can agree on that.  Where’s the impeachment blog?

I too believe that Mr. Stanton is being selfish in his motives and also ignorant and foolish in his fight.

He’s selfish because he thinks of himself before his family.  He’s ignorant because he believes that the public in general is going to accept him and want him as a City Manager.  And last of all, he’s foolish because he’s only making it harder on himself.

You’d think he’d want to be left alone.  But, no.  Instead, he continues to cause upheaval and unrest.

Yep, I’d say that’s the mark of a good City Manager alright!

Yborite - 22 February 2007 10:11 AM

WOW!!!!  While this is a shock to many of us I think many of you are freaking out for no reason.  How is his becoming a woman going to affect your life?  And what is all of this anti-gay sentiment about? 

Why must we always let the Bible dictate human happiness.  Live and let live.  Your form of religion is not everyones form of religion.  No one tells you how to live your life so don’t tell other people how they should live their life or try to influence others.  Your “morals” are not eveyone elses. 

What the hell is with this comment about goats and chickens...my god some of you are really not logical at all....LOL.

WOW yourself, I thought it was “normal” for him to be “transgendered”? Also, if it is so “normal” to be “transgenered” or “gay” then WHY is there a male and female counterpart in every “gay” relationship?  Why, if someone was “gay” would they want to change their “gender” Does he like women now?  This person needs GOD not a doctor to change him!!! 

First you spew your hatred of GOD, then you call on him in your last sentence!!  What is it? The Bible does NOT dictate human happiness!  The HOPE that is given to us by GOD for eternal LIFE does dictate happiness!!  We all have free will to choose whether to believe in GOD or not!  THAT is what is so wonderful, so unconditional about GOD!!! HE made us to want to love HIM on our own!.  HE could have made us all robots to love him, but he did not.  There is NOT another faith (by the way GOD is NOT a religion) that GOD (JESUS CHRIST) died for your sins and was raised from the dead, so that you may have eternal life if you just BELIEVE!!!  NOT budda, mohammad, confusus, or any other so called “gods”!!!  ONLY ONE - JESUS CHRIST!!!

Back to the topic - this Stanton character needs to find GOD and not look in Sarasota for a job - there are enough FREAKS here!!!