Religion in public politics

[glatt]

You get what you pay for. If the government wants to save money by using a religious service provider, then they need to take the bad with the good. If they can't put up with the beliefs of the religion, then they need to be prepared to pay more to bring in a provider that doesn't run on a lot of volunteer labor.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

You get what you pay for. If the government wants to save money by using a religious service provider, then they need to take the bad with the good. If they can't put up with the beliefs of the religion, then they need to be prepared to pay more to bring in a provider that doesn't run on a lot of volunteer labor.

What?!

Howzzat?

Leaving out the religious service provider aspect for a moment (we'll return to it), you're saying that the government ought to just accept discrimination like this? What if some non religious outfit was doing the same work for the same pay but put a big ass sign on the door "HOUSING PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE HERE --NO FUCKING FAGGOTS OR SINNERS NEED APPLY"? And then in the fine print they said, we're just not gonna work with you, we don't want to. This is ... this is taking the bad with the good? How in the world could this be imaginable, I mean how can you imagine this is acceptable? I can not.

Now, for the religious among us. What if the same sign were posted on the door of the church affiliated office for housing placement assistance? That's "OK" because of a religious objection? It is not.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by BigV

What?!

Howzzat?

Did you see the second sentence I wrote?

In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that if you're going to use a service, then you are using that service. If you don't like that service, then you should not use it. Don't expect that service to change for you, especially if the area of disagreement is important to them.

(not "you" but the government.)

The government is using religious services because they are cheap.