[llama66]

yeah, you must go to you employer and tell them that the work is unsafe. you can just refuse to do work out of hand, and besides looking over the legislation for ALL the provinces I see nothing about refusal of work based on religion or religious views,
here I'll post perhaps you can show me where you think this guy had the right to refuse to do his job.
from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/labou ... hwor.shtml
Federal

Canada Labour Code (Part II)

An employee may refuse to work where he/she has reasonable cause to believe that a condition in the workplace constitutes a danger to him/her, or the work constitutes a danger to him/her or another employee1(s.128(1)). "Danger" is defined as any existing or potential hazard or condition or any current or future activity that could reasonably be expected to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it before the hazard or condition can be corrected, or the activity altered, whether or not the injury or illness occurs immediately after the exposure to the hazard, condition or activity, and includes any exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to result in a chronic illness, in disease or in damage to the reproductive system (s.122(1)). An employee may not refuse to work if the refusal puts the life, health or safety of another person directly in danger, or if the danger is a normal condition of employment (s.128(2)). The master of a ship or the pilot of an aircraft is empowered, having regard to the overall safety of the ship or aircraft, to suspend this right while the ship or aircraft is in operation (s.128(3) and (4)). Where an employee reports to the employer that he/she refuses to perform dangerous work, the employee must inform the employer whether he/she intends to exercise recourse under an applicable collective agreement or Part II of the Code. The selection of recourse is irrevocable, unless the employer and employee agree otherwise (s.122(7)). Unless otherwise provided in a collective agreement or other agreement, employees affected by a stoppage of work arising from the right to refuse or continue to refuse dangerous work are presumed to be at work for the purpose of calculating wages and benefits until work resumes or until the end of their shift or scheduled work period, whichever comes first. The same applies to employees who are due to work on the next scheduled work period or shift, unless they have been given at least one hour’s notice not to attend work (s.128.1(1), (2)). The Minister of Labour may, upon the joint application of the parties to a collective agreement, exclude the employees covered by the agreement from the application of the sections of the Code relating to the right to refuse dangerous work for the period during which the agreement remains in force, if he/she is satisfied that the agreement contains provisions that are at least as effective in protecting the employees (s.130). There is protection against dismissal, disciplinary action or other penalty, if acting in accordance with Part II of the Code and a right to complain to the Canada Industrial Relations Board with the burden of proof being on the employer (ss.133, 134 and 147).

Alberta

Occupational Health and Safety Act

A worker may refuse to work where he/she believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that there exists or will exist conditions of imminent danger for him/her or another worker at the work site1(s.35(1)). “Imminent danger" is defined as a danger that is not normal for that occupation, or a danger under which a person engaged in that occupation would not normally carry out his/her work (s.35(2)). A general provision protects workers against dismissal or disciplinary action, including any financial penalty, if acting in compliance with the Act and there is a right to file a complaint with an occupational health and safety officer and, subsequently, to ask that the Occupational Health and Safety Council review the matter (ss.36 and 37).



British Columbia

Workers Compensation Act (WCA) and Occupational Health and Safety Regulation; Mines Act and Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia (Code);

Board means the Workers’ Compensation Board

A person may refuse to work where he/she has reasonable cause to believe that the work would create an undue hazard to the health and safety of any person1(Reg. s.3.12(1), and Code s.1.10.1). There is protection against dismissal or discriminatory action, including reduction of wages or other penalty, if acting in accordance with the legislation (Reg. s.3.13(1), Mines Act, s.14). Part 3 of the WCA, which does not apply to mines, provides that a worker who considers that discriminatory action has been taken against him/her for refusing to perform dangerous work, can seek redress through the grievance procedure under a collective agreement or by way of a complaint to the Board. In either case, the burden of proof is on the employer (WCA ss.150 to 153). (Note: WCA ss.141 to 149 are not in force.)



Manitoba

Workplace Safety and Health Act

A worker may refuse to work where he/she believes, based on reasonable grounds, that the work is dangerous to his/her safety or health or that of another worker or person1(s.43). The worker is entitled to the same wages and benefits that would have been received had he/she continued to work. Workers are protected against dismissal or discriminatory action for refusing to do dangerous work in accordance with the Act, and there is a right to file a complaint with a safety and health officer with the burden of proof being on the employer (ss.42, 42.1).



New Brunswick

Occupational Health and Safety Act;

WHSCC means the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission

An employee may refuse to work where he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the work is likely to endanger his/her health or safety or that of another employee1(s.19). Where an employee has reasonably refused to work in accordance with the Act and has not been reassigned to other work, the employer must pay him/her the same wages and grant the same benefits as would otherwise have been received (s.23). General provisions protect employees against dismissal or discriminatory action, including loss of wages, if they act in accordance with the Act, by having the matter dealt with by final and binding arbitration under a collective agreement, or by filing a complaint with the WHSCC which refers it to an arbitrator it has appointed with a possible review of the decision on any ground by the Court of Queen's Bench (ss. 24 to 27).



Newfoundland and Labrador

Occupational Health and Safety Act

A worker may refuse to do work that he/she has reasonable grounds to believe is dangerous to his/her health or safety or that of another person at the workplace1. Where a worker has reasonably refused to work in accordance with the Act and has not been reassigned to other work, the employer must pay him/her the same wages and grant the same benefits as would otherwise have been received (ss.45, 46). There is protection against dismissal or discriminatory action, including deduction of wages or other benefits, if this right is exercised in accordance with the Act, and a right to use any grievance procedure provided in a collective agreement with respect to discrimination or file a complaint with the Labour Relations Board; in either case, the burden of proof is on the employer (ss.49 to 52)



Northwest Territories and Nunavut

Safety Act, Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSA) and Mine Health and Safety Regulations



A worker may refuse to work where he/she has reason to believe that an unusual danger exists or is likely to exist to his/her health or safety or that of another person1(s.13(2)). "Unusual danger" is defined as a danger that does not normally exist in an occupation, or a danger under which a person engaged in that occupation would not normally carry out his/her work (s.13(1)). The worker must be paid at his/her regular rate of pay during the normal working hours while the investigation is taking place (s.13(8)). In mines, an employee may refuse to work if he/she has reasonable cause to believe that the work or the condition of a work site could endanger the health or safety of any person (MHSA s.18 (1), (2)). There is protection against dismissal, disciplinary measures or discriminatory action, including loss of earnings, if workers exercise the right to refuse dangerous work in accordance with the legislation (s. 22; MHSA ss.19, 20).



Nova Scotia

Occupational Health and Safety Act

An employee may refuse to work where he/she has reasonable grounds for believing that the work is likely to endanger his/her health or safety or that of another person1(s.43(1)). The employee may not exercise this right if the refusal puts the life, health or safety of another person directly in danger or if the danger is inherent in the work (s.43(9)). Where an employee has exercised his/her right to refuse dangerous work and has not been reassigned to other duties, the employer must, until the matter is resolved, pay the employee the same salary and grant the same benefits as would otherwise have been received (s.43(7)). There is protection against dismissal or discriminatory action, including reduction in wages and other benefits, where an employee has refused dangerous work in accordance with the Act, through grievance arbitration under a collective agreement or by making a complaint to an occupational health and safety officer, with the burden of proof being on the employer (ss.45, 46).



Ontario

Occupational Health and Safety Act

A worker may refuse to work where he/she has reason to believe that the work is likely to endanger himself/herself or a co-worker1. Exclusions are specified when dangerous circumstances described in the Act are inherent in the worker’s work or a normal condition of the worker’s employment or when the worker’s refusal to work would directly endanger the life, health or safety of another person (s.43). General provisions protect workers against dismissal or disciplinary action, including any financial penalty, if acting in accordance with the Act, through final and binding arbitration under a collective agreement or by making a complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board with the burden of proof being on the employer (s.50).



Prince Edward Island

Occupational Health and Safety Act;

WCB means the Workers Compensation Board

A worker may refuse to work where he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that an act is likely to endanger his/her health or safety or that of another worker1(s.28). Where a worker has reasonably exercised his/her right to refuse dangerous work in accordance with the Act and has not been reassigned to other duties, the employer must, until the matter is resolved, pay that worker the same wages and grant the same benefits as would otherwise have been received (s.29(5)). Workers are protected against discriminatory action, dismissal and penalties when acting in accordance with the Act; and there is a right to use the arbitration procedure under a collective agreement or to complain to the WCB. In the latter case, if all the required steps to resolve the complaint have been exhausted, the WCB refers the complaint to an arbitrator it appoints (ss.30 and 31)).



Quebec

An Act respecting occupational health and safety;

CSST means Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Occupational Health and Safety Commission)

A worker may refuse to work if he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the performance of that work would expose him/her to danger to his/her health, safety or physical well-being, or would expose another person to a similar danger1. However, this right may not be exercised if the refusal puts the life, health, safety or physical well-being of another person in immediate danger or if the conditions under which the work is to be performed are ordinary in this kind of work. The worker is deemed to be at work while exercising his/her right to refuse in accordance with the Act. There is protection against dismissal, discriminatory action or reprisals, unless the worker abused the right to refuse (ss. 12 to 31), and the worker has the right to use the grievance procedure under a collective agreement or to submit a complaint to the CSST. The burden of proof is on the employer to establish another good and sufficient reason for taking the action. The CSST's decision is subject to review by the Commission des lésions professionnelles (Occupational Injury Commission) (ss. 227 and 228).



Saskatchewan

Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993

A worker may refuse to work where he/she has reasonable grounds to believe that the work is unusually dangerous to his/her health or safety or that of any other person at the place of employment1(s. 23). There is protection against dismissal or discriminatory action, including loss of wages, for acting in accordance with the Act. A complaint of discriminatory action may be made to an occupational health officer. In any prosecution or other proceeding under the Act, the burden of proof is on the employer (ss. 27 and 28).



Yukon Territory

Occupational Health and Safety Act

A worker may refuse to work where he/she has reason to believe that the work constitutes an undue hazard to that worker or any other person or a condition exists in the workplace that constitutes an undue hazard1(s.15(1)). This right may not be exercised if the life, health, safety, or physical well-being of another person is put in immediate danger or if the conditions under which the work is to be performed are ordinary for that kind of work (s.15(5)). The worker must be paid at his/her regular or premium rate, as the case may be, while the matter giving rise to the refusal is being investigated until a decision is rendered by a safety officer (s.16(6)). There is a general prohibition against dismissing a worker or taking any disciplinary or discriminatory action against him/her because he/she has acted in accordance with the Act (s.18).



________________________________________________________

Note

Typically, the following steps are taken when an employee refuses to perform dangerous work. The refusal must be reported to the employer or supervisor who investigates the matter; in certain jurisdictions, the investigation must be carried out in the presence of the employee and a worker representative in the workplace. If the employer or supervisor finds that the employee is not justified to refuse to work or corrective actions have been taken, and the employee continues in his/her refusal, the matter is referred to a government-appointed safety officer or inspector who investigates the circumstances of the refusal (in some jurisdictions, the matter may be referred to a health and safety committee, if one exists, prior to any referral to a safety officer or inspector). A safety officer or inspector can order appropriate remedial actions to be taken by the employer and decide whether the refusal is justified or not. If the safety officer or inspector finds that the danger perceived by the employee does not exist or no longer exists, the employee is no longer justified under the law to continue to refuse to carry out the work. In general, the employee can appeal the decision of a safety officer or inspector, but the decision is not suspended during the appeal process. Usually, the law specifies that while the circumstances giving rise to a refusal to perform dangerous work are being investigated, the employer may assign the employee reasonable alternative work, and may not designate another employee to do the work, unless he/she has been informed of the refusal and the reasons for it.
-----------
I didn't see religion mentioned once did you?

[kenmore]

Quote from SherherdsDog: nice try with the use of the word " homosexual" which was not heard of at the time of the bible.. I decided to check it out.. went to my church and spoke with the priest.. the Catholic bible makes no reference to homosexuals. My brother in law is a United Church Minister, asked him .. same answer. The Jerusalem bible.. 1 Corninthians six..9: " You know perfectly well that people of immoral lives, idolators, adulterers, catatmites, sodomites, theives, usuers, drunkards, slanderer and swindilers, will never inherit the kingdom of God" Both told me that Sodom was a place where evil and perversion thrived, they both said the use of the term sodom was reference to the place and it wasn't used in reference to anal intercourse until centuries later.. They also said there is a passage that should be viewed by those who like to throw false statements around... " Judge not lest ye also may be judged"

[kenmore]

A little cut and paste for ya Homosexual

Karl-Maria Kertbeny coined the word homosexual in this 1868 letter.
Main article: homosexuality
The word homosexual translates literally as "of the same sex", being a hybrid of the Greek prefix homo- meaning "same" (as distinguished from the Latin root homo meaning human) and the Latin root sex meaning "sex". In Sanskrit homosexual is called somo-kaami or sama-kaami. In Sanskrit, the prefix somo- means "same" and Kaami means "who desires the same sex".
The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in a 1869 German pamphlet 143 des Preussischen Strafgesetzbuchs und seine Aufrechterhaltung als 152 des Entwurfs eines Strafgesetzbuchs für den Norddeutschen Bund ("Paragraph 143 of the Prussian Penal Code and Its Maintenance as Paragraph 152 of the Draft of a Penal Code for the North German Confederation"). The pamphlet was written by Karl-Maria Kertbeny, but published anonymously. The pamphlet advocated the repeal of Prussia's sodomy laws (Bullough et al. ed. (1996)). Kertbeny had previously used the word in a private letter written in 1868 to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. Kertbeny used Homosexualität in place of Ulrichs's Urningtum; Homosexualisten instead of Urninge, and Homosexualistinnen instead of Urninden.
The first known use of homosexual in English is in Charles Gilbert Chaddock's 1895 translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices.[5] The term was popularized by the 1906 Harden-Eulenburg Affair.
Although some early writers used the adjective homosexual to refer to any single-gender context (such as an all-girls' school), today the term implies a sexual aspect. The term homosocial is now used to describe single-sex contexts that are not specifically sexual.
[edit]Homogenic love....I just love those who interpret the bible literally to suit their own bias and ignorance and self serving rightiousness

[ShepherdsDog]

kenmore kenmore:

Quote from SherherdsDog: nice try with the use of the word " homosexual" which was not heard of at the time of the bible.. I decided to check it out.. went to my church and spoke with the priest.. the Catholic bible makes no reference to homosexuals. My brother in law is a United Church Minister, asked him .. same answer. The Jerusalem bible.. 1 Corninthians six..9: " You know perfectly well that people of immoral lives, idolators, adulterers, catatmites, sodomites, theives, usuers, drunkards, slanderer and swindilers, will never inherit the kingdom of God" Both told me that Sodom was a place where evil and perversion thrived, they both said the use of the term sodom was reference to the place and it wasn't used in reference to anal intercourse until centuries later.. They also said there is a passage that should be viewed by those who like to throw false statements around... " Judge not lest ye also may be judged"

Jesus Kermit, you really go out of your way to make yourself seem like you are a major dumb ass. The verses I listed are modern English interpretations/translations of Greek, Latin , Aramaic and Hebrew terms. They do have bibles written in modern English you know. But then again, you've proved time and time again that English(amongst a plethora of other subjects) is not one of your strong suits.

I also pointed out that I didn't agree with the stance taken by the fellow in question, in my original post. Off with you now, go and picket some Arabs, or make up some more stories about your Quebecois British grandfathers hat fought the Cylons.

cat·a·mite
Pronunciation: \ˈka-tə-ˌmīt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin catamitus, from Catamitus Ganymede, from Etruscan Catmite, from Greek Ganymēdēs
Date: 1593
: a boy kept by a pederast

Main Entry: ped·er·ast
Pronunciation: \ˈpe-də-ˌrast\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek paiderastēs, literally, lover of boys, from paid- ped- + erastēs lover, from erasthai to love — more at eros
Date: circa 1736
: one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy
— ped·er·as·tic \ˌpe-də-ˈras-tik\ adjective
— ped·er·as·ty \ˈpe-də-ˌras-tē\ noun

I'll leave you with another biblical quote from the Book of the Shepherds Dog 1:1-2
" And the Lord said, 'Do not suffer the fools, especially that Dumbass Kenmore, for he is an abomination. Verily, I say unto thee, serve him ass as often as thou feels the need'."

[2Cdo]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

I'll leave you with another biblical quote from the Book of the Shepherds Dog 1:1-2
" And the Lord said, 'Do not suffer the fools, especially that Dumbass Kenmore, for he is an abomination. Verily, I say unto thee, serve him ass as often as thou feels the need'."

That was one of the funniest, but true, things I read today!

[PENATRATOR]

Praxius Praxius:

Oh and this is rich:

$1:

He told the tribunal that the Bible directs him to believe that "God hates homosexuality."

No where in the Bible does it even state that God hates Homosexuals.

The only argument I have ever heard in the Bible was against Sodomy (Anal Sex)

Whoever said all homosexuals perform Sodomy? Who'd going to be the one to prove this?

Do Lesbians perform sodomy on each other?

Maybe the homosexual couple isn't even having sex. Maybe they are, but they only perform oral sex or anything else that doesn't involve sodomy..... there's plenty of sexual positions and other things people can do besides just anal sex or typical intercourse.

And since the only thing I ever seen in the Bible was towards Sodomy and not directly Homosexuals, the above argument is mute in regards to a religious excuse. Not only that but plenty of straight people have anal sex all the time.... does god love them more the homosexuals?

Me thinks not.

Added:

And the claim that these two people have had anal sex or have it often is subjective. People merely assume they have anal sex because they're gay males.... yet claims require proof to be taken seriously. Unless you have so much time on your hands to actually peep into their bedroom window to get photographic evidence of them doing this, the argument is pointless against marrying same sex couples.

Christ you have lots of time on your hands

[Akhenaten]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Choban Choban:

"To allow a public official to insert their personal beliefs into decisions about who should and who should not receive a public service would undermine the protection of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code," said Human Rights Commission manager Rebecca McLellan.
This is the most BS statement I've read in a while, we bend over backwards for minoprity religions in this country but this guy can't refuse based on his "personal" beliefs?
I thought he had a right to believe what he wants and to practice however his religion deems he should but I guess the double standard hit him in the guts.
The should have thrown this case out and told these guys to stop whining, they did get married anyways.

Not bend over backwards - it's called doing your job. As a public servant, you are told by your boss, the government, what you do. Don't like or disagree with it, quit.

Gotta argee with this point. What if he was a cop and refused to help someone because they were homosexual, or someone refused to issue a drivers license because they were a homosexual, or, or....

Point is he does the job for all of us not for himself. His personal beliefs don't enter into it.

[Mustang1]

This seems pretty simple - he's a public official and if he can't do his role then he needs to get another job. This isn't about a religious official refusing to preside over a ceremony, this is about a provincial commissioner refusing because of his religious "beliefs". Same-sex marriages are legal in Canada and same-sex couples should be allowed access to secular service. I'm not usually a fan of Human Right Commissions but in this case they were right and Orville is wrong.

[Praxius]

ASLplease ASLplease:

he never denied anyone anything, he simple refused to do it. the couple was free to get married somewhere else, possibly the same office by someone else.

the charter speaks of the right to same sex marriage, not the right to fire someone if they won't marry 2 fags in a job that they have historically held.

allowing 2 fags to marry = good

not providing for a way that people can keep their jobs without violating their religion = sounds like a bitter scheme dreamed up by some religion hating homos.

Wow, now there's an intellegent point of view

"the charter speaks of the right to same sex marriage, not the right to fire someone if they won't marry 2 fags in a job that they have historically held."

I really don't give two shakes of a whale's scrotum how long they held their job(s).... laws, rules and procedures change with time and if they're not willing to change, then boot their sorry arses out of the job.

If they do not meet the requirements for the job, then they are not qualified.

If you want to be all "Anal" over who you marry or not, join a damn chruch.

There is no bitter scheme dreamed up by "Religion Hating Homos" as you so ignorantly put it, the reality is that people are no longer tollerating ignorant religious wing nuts dictating how the world is going to be, according to them and their foolish book. (See, others can play your game too)

They have all sorts of places to practice their religion, the State is not one of them.

If there was a perfect example of how church and state should be seperated, this would be one of the many.

And bravo.... calling people who don't think like you "Fags" or "Homos" is a wonderful way of winning people over to your argument. *clap clap*

[Praxius]

ASLplease ASLplease:

The mining act in BC says that you have right to refuse to do any work that you feel is unsafe.

Where this is leading should be interesting....

$1:

There have been cases where people have refused to do something because they felt it was unsafe, and they were disciplined because some other employee(often the stupid guy) agreed to do it.

Look up Occupational Health and Safety. If that is the case and the person feels they were unjustly fired when they had a valid safety concern, they can address this problem with the OHS board.

But how exactly does this have any relation to the topic?

$1:

In such case, government arbitrators have ruled that an employee has the right to refuse to do something that they feel is unsafe even if it is something unique to themselves.

My point is simple....if you have 100,000 employees and you change their job descriptions where 1% are faced with a conflict of interest with their religion......YOU DONT FIRE THEM, AND YOU CERTAINLY DONT FORCE THEM TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST THEIR RELIGION.

If you work for the government, and those changes are done because the law has changed, then yes you do.

I still don't see how dangerous actions in the workplace have any relation to this fool not conducting someone's wedding because they are gay.

Do you think he'll mysteriously catch something?

$1:

Whenever, a same sex couple comes in for a marriage, let that 1% go down to the archives department to do some filing, or let them push a broom. The other 99,000 is a thousand times more people than we need to perform marriages of same sex.

It's ridiculous to assume that all 100,000 workers need to be willing to perform a same sex marriage.

It's part of the job. If you can't do your job, then you don't disserve the job. Why should everybody else have to pick up your slack because you have some personal hangup that should hold no bearing on how you conduct your job?

This isn't someone with a medical condition, this isn't someone with a mental-illness and he's not working for his church/religion.... he has no excuse to not do his job.

Just be greatful the government didn't force religions to perform same sex marriages along with civil servants and that they had at least that much respect for religion and their personal beliefs..... but as it stands inside the government, if they had to accommodate every single religious hangup from all religious backgrounds or other personal issues people have due to simply not liking someone or something, then even less would be getting done then there already seems to be.

The Government is there to do the jobs required of them by the people of the nation from all walks of life... they are not there to pamper and do whatever every other religious group wants them to do.

[ASLplease]

There are lots of people that cant or won't do a certain part of their job. That is very common with lazy government employees.

at least this guy has presented a religious reason.

[Praxius]

kenmore kenmore:

Quote from SherherdsDog: nice try with the use of the word " homosexual" which was not heard of at the time of the bible.. I decided to check it out.. went to my church and spoke with the priest.. the Catholic bible makes no reference to homosexuals. My brother in law is a United Church Minister, asked him .. same answer. The Jerusalem bible.. 1 Corninthians six..9: " You know perfectly well that people of immoral lives, idolators, adulterers, catatmites, sodomites, theives, usuers, drunkards, slanderer and swindilers, will never inherit the kingdom of God" Both told me that Sodom was a place where evil and perversion thrived, they both said the use of the term sodom was reference to the place and it wasn't used in reference to anal intercourse until centuries later.. They also said there is a passage that should be viewed by those who like to throw false statements around... " Judge not lest ye also may be judged"

Yeah see I thought I was right.... I never once heard the term Homosexual in the Bible in my upbringing, only from the mouths of other humans. I only seen the term Sodomites, etc.

And apparently Drunkards are not going to heaven either, so all those wine drinkers and those who claimed Beer was a symbol of God's love are all wrong

(Although no mention of Pot.... hmmmm)

[Praxius]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Jesus Kermit, you really go out of your way to make yourself seem like you are a major dumb ass. The verses I listed are modern English interpretations/translations of Greek, Latin , Aramaic and Hebrew terms. They do have bibles written in modern English you know. But then again, you've proved time and time again that English(amongst a plethora of other subjects) is not one of your strong suits.

I also pointed out that I didn't agree with the stance taken by the fellow in question, in my original post. Off with you now, go and picket some Arabs, or make up some more stories about your Quebecois British grandfathers hat fought the Cylons.

cat·a·mite
Pronunciation: \ˈka-tə-ˌmīt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin catamitus, from Catamitus Ganymede, from Etruscan Catmite, from Greek Ganymēdēs
Date: 1593
: a boy kept by a pederast

Main Entry: ped·er·ast
Pronunciation: \ˈpe-də-ˌrast\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek paiderastēs, literally, lover of boys, from paid- ped- + erastēs lover, from erasthai to love — more at eros
Date: circa 1736
: one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy
— ped·er·as·tic \ˌpe-də-ˈras-tik\ adjective
— ped·er·as·ty \ˈpe-də-ˌras-tē\ noun

I'll leave you with another biblical quote from the Book of the Shepherds Dog 1:1-2
" And the Lord said, 'Do not suffer the fools, especially that Dumbass Kenmore, for he is an abomination. Verily, I say unto thee, serve him ass as often as thou feels the need'."

lmao.... So you use an updated translation of words that were translated before in the bible.... which in itself was translated and re-written how many times over the centuries?

And you related the term "Pederast" - "Literally, Lover of Boys"

^ Sounds like a Pedophile, not Homosexual to me.

How about Catamite:

$1:

A catamite is the younger partner in a pederastic relationship between two males, which was a popular arrangement in many areas of the ancient world.

Kings and Emperors in some ancient cultures had not only concubines but also catamites (male concubines), in addition to their many wives.

The word catamite is derived from the Latin catamitus, itself borrowed from the Etruscan catmite, a corruption of the Greek Ganymedes, the boy who was seduced by Zeus and became his beloved and cup-bearer in Greek mythology.

#1 - Catamite is the younger partner in a relationship between two males, usually a male who has many wives.

^ Sounds Bi-Sexual to me, no Homosexual. It also seemed to be a perfectly accepted relationship until Christianity came along and re-written the rules to their preference.

#2 - Ganymedes, the Boy who was seduced by Zeus..... considering in reality that Christianity derived the majority of their beliefs from Greek/Roman mythologies, it's kinda comical seeing how they pick and choose what suits their mythology.

• God(s) living in the clouds
• Bad guy living underground in an evil place
• Angels/Messengers with wings
• Halos

And much more all came from Greek Mythologies.... yet people think it's valid to tollerate Christianity's picking and choosing of what is right and wrong?

Why? Because one God says so over another God?

Here's a bit more in relation to Greek/Christian similarities.

http://hubpages.com/hub/the-bible-and-greek-mythology

[Praxius]

PENATRATOR PENATRATOR:

Christ you have lots of time on your hands

Christ, do you have a point or just trying to get your post count up just ever so much with pointless comments?

[Bodah]

As a "public" servant this person has lost his right to be offended when he swore an oath when accepting his job. Even if due to personal or religous beliefs when it comes to same sex marriages

He represents the government and the government has allowed same sex marriages if he cant perform his duties he should be fired or quit.