Reference no: EM133453944

Question: My argument - an individual must carry out the mission of the organization they represent even if their personal convictions or beliefs conflict with that mission. In response to these two discussion post, consider how their argument compares to yours. Do you agree with their position? Why or why not? Did their position agree with yours, but they made a point you hadn't considered? Did they make the opposite argument, but you found yourself agreeing with parts of their logic? Which of their points or arguments make the most sense to you, even if you still disagree with their overall position? We also talked about the situation with Kim Davis in our discussions. Post 1 - As people in a professional world, things like this are going to be a conflict all the time. Not everyone has the same beliefs and everyone is allowed to agree to disagree in their personal life. When it comes to your job whether it is in the private sector or a government job, you took that oath and agreed to the mission statement the day you accepted that job. Especially when you work for the law in any form, you are allowed to have beliefs, but the law comes before your personal beliefs. Judge Bunning said himself, "I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs," the judge later said, but "I took an oath." (Ortiz, Gutierrez, Silva 2015). Davis does not believe in same sex marriage because of her religion, but since the law was passed, she is obligated to give out marriage licenses to same sex couples. I'm sure it is a hard thing to go back on what you believe, but at that point, you have to weigh the options if you are a good fit for that job anymore. With this being said, I do not believe that these ideas can coexist. The best thing for people to do when they accept a job is for them to understand what their duties are and what the mission statement for that entity is. If those don't align than the person should have better judgement not to accept a job they cannot fulfill. Post 2 - As a public official, Kim Davis was responsible for carrying out her duties in accordance with the law. When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015, it became the law of the land, and as a county clerk, Davis was obligated to follow and uphold that law. While individuals are entitled to hold their personal beliefs, public officials are expected to separate their personal beliefs from their professional responsibilities. In this case, Davis's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on her religious objections conflicted with her duty to follow the law. When conflicts arise between personal beliefs and professional responsibilities, it is generally expected that public officials prioritize their duty to uphold the law and provide equal treatment to all citizens. Accommodations for religious beliefs may be possible in some cases, but they must be balanced against the rights and equality of those being served. Unfortunately, everyone has their beliefs and how certain situations should be handled. But when you go in for a job, there is that understanding that you will follow the company rules and follow them.